Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Lake District Housing Association. Does the Minister not agree that a shortcoming of policy towards affordable housing, especially in areas of important landscape, has been an excessive focus on new build and insufficient recognition of the possibilities supplied by the very considerable existing housing stock, whose problem is that it is too expensive?

Lord Greaves: Well, my Lords, in our neighbourhood there is a communal area at the end of the street where people have to put their wheelie bins each week and it would be very easy, indeed, to do that.
	Would not charging also result in a great increase in fly-tipping and discriminate against large households and poor people? Should it not therefore be rejected forthwith?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"I should like to make a Statement about the current situation regarding the 15 British service personnel detained by Iranian forces on Friday of last week. The Government are doing all that they can to ensure that they are released immediately. "I should say at once, and I am sure I speak for the whole House, that our thoughts and prayers at this moment are with all our detained personnel in Iran and their families."I should like to begin by explaining the facts of what happened last Friday, and the actions we have taken since, and to share with the House some details about the location of the incident on which the MoD briefed this morning."At approximately 0630 GMT on 23 March, 15 British naval personnel from HMS 'Cornwall', engaged in a routine boarding operation of a merchant vessel in Iraqi territorial waters in support of Security Council Resolution 1723 and of the Government of Iraq, were seized by Iranian naval vessels."HMS 'Cornwall' was conducting routine maritime security operations as part of a multinational force coalition task force operating under a United Nations mandate at the request of the Iraqi Government. The task force's mission was to protect Iraqi oil terminals and prevent smuggling."The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they and their two boats were surrounded by six Iranian vessels and escorted into Iranian territorial waters. "I immediately consulted the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence and asked my Permanent Under-Secretary to summon the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "We set out our three demands to the ambassador: information on the whereabouts of our people, consular access to them, and to be told the arrangements for their immediate release. COBRA met that afternoon, as it has done every day since. "On 24 March, my colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Triesman, held a further meeting with the ambassador to repeat our demands. He has had several such meetings since that date."At that first meeting, the Iranian ambassador gave us, on behalf of his Government, the co-ordinates of the site where that Government claimed our personnel had been detained. They were not of course where we believed the incident took place but we took delivery of them as the statement of events of the Government of Iran. On examination, these co-ordinates supplied by Iran are themselves in Iraqi waters. "On Sunday 25 March I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, as I did again yesterday. In my first conversation, I pointed out that not only did the co-ordinates for the incident as relayed by HMS 'Cornwall' show that the incident took place 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters, but also that the grid co-ordinates for the incidents that the Iranian authorities had provided our embassy on Friday 23 March and Lord Triesman on Saturday 24 March showed also that the incident had taken place in Iraqi waters. I suggested to the Iranian Foreign Minister that it appeared that the whole affair might have been a misunderstanding which could be resolved by immediate release. "In Iran, our ambassador, Geoffrey Adams, has met on a daily basis with senior Iranian officials to press for immediate answers to our questions. He has left the Iranian authorities in no doubt that there is no justification for the Iranians to have taken the British Navy personnel into custody, and provided the grid co-ordinates of the incident which clearly showed that our personnel were in Iraqi waters and made clear that we expected their immediate and safe return. I should tell the House that we have no doubt either about these facts or about the legitimacy of our requirements. "When our ambassador and my colleague Lord Triesman followed up with the Iranian authorities on Monday 25 March, we were provided with new, and I quote, "corrected", grid co-ordinates by the Iranian side which now showed the incident as having taken place in Iranian waters. As I made clear to Foreign Minister Mottaki when I spoke to him yesterday, we find it impossible to believe, given the seriousness of the incident, that the Iranians could have made such a mistake with the original co-ordinates, which after all they gave us over several days. "There has inevitably been much international interest in the situation, particularly given our personnel's role in a multinational force operating under a UN mandate. I have spoken to a number of international partners, including US Secretary of State Rice, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud. We have also been keeping other international partners informed and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that many of them have chosen to lobby the Iranians or issue statements of support. I am particularly grateful to my colleague Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, who has confirmed publicly that the incident took place in Iraqi waters, calling for the personnel, who are acting in Iraq's interests, to be released. "The Iranians have assured us that all our personnel are being treated well. We will hold them to that commitment and continue to press for immediate release. They have also assured us that there is no linkage between this issue and other issues, bilateral, regional or international—which I, of course, welcome. But I regret to say that the Iranian authorities have so far failed to meet any of our demands or responded to our desire to resolve this issue quickly and quietly through behind-the-scenes diplomacy. "That is why we have today chosen to respond to parliamentary and public demand for more information about the original incident and to get into the public record both our and the Iranian accounts to demonstrate the clarity of our position and the force of the Prime Minister's words on Sunday 25 March, when he said, and I quote,
	"there is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi waters. It is simply not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters, and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us. We have certainly sent the message back to them very clearly indeed. They should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act, which is unjustified and wrong".
	"The House may also be aware that, even if the Iranian Government believed our vessels had been in Iranian waters—and I stress that they were not—under international law, warships have sovereign immunity in the territorial sea of other states. The very most Iran would have been entitled to do, if it considered that our boats were breaching the rules on innocent passage, would have been to require the ship to leave its territorial waters immediately."We will continue to pursue vigorously our diplomatic efforts with the Iranians to press for the immediate release of our personnel and equipment. As Members of the House will appreciate on sensitive issues such as these, as with the recent Ethiopian case, getting the balance right between private, but robust, diplomacy and meeting the House's and the public's justified demand for reliable information is a difficult judgment. I am very grateful for the support we have been given over the past few days by the foreign affairs spokesmen of the other parties, and from yourself, Mr Speaker, as well as others in the House, and hope that this will continue."But, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, we are now in a new phase of diplomatic activity. That is why the MoD has today released details of the incident and why I have concluded that we need to focus all our bilateral efforts during this phase to resolution of the issue. We will, therefore, be imposing a freeze on all other official bilateral business with Iran until this situation is resolved. We will keep other aspects of our policy towards Iran under close review and will continue to proceed carefully. But no one should be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we regard these events".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's Statement, for presenting the details of the situation with such clarity and, if I may say so, for his own part in seeking a swift resolution of this ugly problem.
	Do not these details show beyond doubt that both HMS "Cornwall" and its boarding party boats were at least 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when surrounded and that they were going about their lawful business? Is that not confirmed by the GPS pictures, by witnesses and by the master of the Indian merchant vessel, which was anchored and unloading and was being examined? Therefore, were the Iranians not, frankly, acting in error, as they continue to do?
	This is potentially a very grave situation in which there will be full support from this side of the House and, I suspect, from the whole House and all parties for the firm and measured approach to the problem at this stage that the Government have deployed. However, I know it will be recognised that if this approach is continually rebuffed for a prolonged period it will have to change. If the news is correct that one member of the group, Faye Turney, is to be released, we obviously hope that that is a sign of the dawn of realism on the Iranian side.
	Perhaps I may put a number of questions to the Minister. First, we have heard that there have been repeated requests for consular access to the naval personnel. Has any firm reply of any sort been received about when this can occur and where the naval personnel are? Surely it is time that we at least knew that. At this point, I should add that we obviously share fully in the overriding concern for the safety of those seized and in the very understandable anxieties of their relatives, colleagues and friends.
	Secondly, what went wrong operationally? Clearly, something did. It seems that the Iranian fast patrol boats must have been lurking and hiding, perhaps behind the Indian freighter, in order to spring a trap. Why did these boats not show up on the maritime recognition systems and screens of HMS "Cornwall"? Would preventive action have been possible if they had been spotted in time, or did the rules of engagement prevent any moves being made, even if they were spotted? If so, are these the right rules of engagement for patrolling in such dangerous waters? Had we been warned by any intelligence sources that a raid of this kind might be tried at this stage in the broader political context? Are we sure that its timing is not in any way linked with other events, such as the UN sanctions debate or the detention of Iranian suspects, who had been making mischief inside Iraq?
	Can the Minister tell us something about the report that Turkish intermediaries have sought to be involved with Iran? Is that true and are they of any help? Does the Minister agree that, for the moment, we must pursue matters—he obviously agrees—by the most vigorous presentation of the facts? If that does not produce results, the full pressures of the international community, in its various guises, such as the United Nations, the European Union and all our other allies and friends across the globe, will have to be mobilised.
	Does he agree that Iran is a very ancient and potentially very great nation which we would prefer to respect and work with rather than have to challenge and work against? It can only wound itself by its recalcitrance and non-co-operation in this matter, or indeed in other matters. Does he agree that we have ample capacities, reluctant though we may be to deploy them, to apply strong, additional pressures on Iran and that we would have every moral and legal justification for doing so when all else has been patiently, legally and carefully tried, without result? We may already have taken a first step on that course, as the Minister has reminded us, by freezing all other official, bilateral business with Iran until the situation is resolved.
	We obviously hope and pray that it will not go further than that. Will the noble Lord undertake to keep the House fully informed as this dangerous situation unfolds? We hope it will lead to a sensible outcome and to the immediate release of all our people.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Government for the Statement. We fully understand and appreciate why the Government have been reluctant to inform the House before now. We support the combination of quiet diplomacy and firm action that the Government have undertaken and we all share the overriding objective: the safe return of our forces.
	In the circumstances, it is not appropriate to press the Government much further. However, I ask, as a point of fact, whether the waters concerned are part of the Shatt al Arab, which was a much-contested border in the Iraq-Iran war, or whether they are part of the lower Shatt al Arab, where the international boundary is already accepted and entirely clear?
	Can the Government say anything about Iranian motivations? In the previous weeks, had there been any indications that Iranian attitudes and behaviour were changing? One of the most important statements in this document is that the Iranians,
	"have also assured us that there is no linkage between this issue and other issues, bilateral, regional or international".
	I hope that the Iranians will be able to stick to that insistence without attempting, as on previous occasions, to link the taking of hostages with other issues. Do we have a clear understanding as to which level within the very complex Iranian regime is involved? Was it the regular Iranian navy or the revolutionary guards?
	We also welcome the statement about solidarity from our partners. I recall, in 1979, when Iranian revolutionary guards invaded and occupied the American embassy, the ambassadors of all the European Union states represented in Tehran, as a group, going to see the Iranian Government and insisting that action against any one would be regarded as action against all. The EU and NATO are multilateral networks through which we can operate. As the Statement rightly emphasises, British forces were operating there under a United Nations mandate and, therefore, this is a matter with which the United Nations needs to be concerned.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, thank you very much. It is absolutely in Iraqi waters, not in Iranian waters, by any reading of the co-ordinates provided either by ourselves or the Iranians. It is further down the territorial water boundary than the area that noble Lords have mentioned, so there is no doubt that it is an agreed international border. There can be no question on that point.
	I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about Iran. It is plainly, historically, a great nation. I hope that it can return to greatness through a degree of co-operation with the rest of the international community. That is fervently desired by absolutely everybody. The clearest demonstration of that would be to release our forces immediately.
	We have ample capacities, and certainly have justifications for the steps that we have taken. It is absolutely right that all business with Iran other than this is frozen. It must be resolved, and that is our principle objective. It should not, and cannot, be diluted by any other matter. I am certainly willing to undertake to keep the House as informed as I can, given the understanding shared in the House that the release of our people is our priority.
	I shall answer one point about the waters, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace; I hope I have answered his point about Iranian motivations. In the very first meeting, they said to me that there were no links to other matters. We have taken them at their word. If, as they have said, this is a technical matter to be resolved technically, we should all rely on the co-ordinates that have been provided—before some other co-ordinates which placed these boats in Iranian waters are given, although we know that they were in Iraqi waters—and we should rely on that being a statement made in good faith, with data provided in good faith and being plottable on the charts by everybody in good faith. There is no link with anything else. It is hard to say what level of decision-taking in Iran has been involved. I have been told by the ambassador that Iranian border forces were involved, but I presume that those forces interact with authorities higher up the chain. However, that has not been confirmed.
	In respect of all the questions about international assistance, I can say that our partners have been very forthcoming. The European Union presidency immediately made a very strong statement, and we have seen strong statements from the other EU member states. I have no doubt that when they meet this weekend, there will be further opportunities to explore some of these issues. I have no reason to doubt that when they explore it, they will continue that support. We believe that they have used serious endeavours to speak to the Iranian Government about the overall relationship with the EU. I believe that we have done that all acting together, but that has not yet borne the fruit that we would wish. We will be utterly persistent in getting that outcome.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, it is good that we had immediate full solidarity from our EU partners. I presume that, since our forces were on a UN-sanctioned mission, the United Nations will give similar support. I have spoken again to a Swansea woman who is the mother of one of the marines. She wishes it to be known that the Ministry of Defence has been most supportive of the families of the marines who have been captured. My questions are her questions. She asks, first, whether there was a heightened state of alert because of the events at the United Nations that weekend. Secondly, why did the helicopter on the scene leave—had it, for example, seen the Iranian ships lurking in the vicinity, as was suggested by the noble Lord? Thirdly, what lessons, if any, have been learnt from the similar incident in 2004 that might have assisted us in dealing with this incident?

Lord Jay of Ewelme: My Lords, I know how difficult and delicate negotiations of this kind can be. I support very much the stance the Government have taken since this incident began. I also say how much I welcome the support we are receiving from our European and other partners and hope very much, as other noble Lords have said, that we can build on that in the days ahead in Tehran, Brussels and— perhaps particularly given the nature of the operations of HMS "Cornwall"—in New York.
	May I ask just one question of the Minister? There is sometimes a tendency, when situations become as delicate as this one has, to see the withdrawal of ambassadors as one of the tools in a toolkit of sanctions. The last week has shown how important it is to have our ambassador active in Tehran, and, indeed, to have the Iranian ambassador active here in London. It is precisely in situations as difficult as this that our ambassadors, with their contacts, really show their worth. Will the Minister take that very much into account if the situation deteriorates, which I hope it does not, and if other measures are considered?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Government for their measured and moderate yet firm response to the seizing of 15 British naval personnel. I speak as one who is opposed to the Iraq war and would like our troops withdrawn. I also have some sympathy with the Iranian desire for a peaceful nuclear programme. Having said that, will the Minister tell the Iranian Government from people like me that their action in seizing British personnel is completely disproportionate and illegal, and that it will make them very bad friends among the people of this country and, indeed, among those wish them well and understand the position that they are in? It does not help them to do things such as this.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, just before we come to the Gambling (Geographical Distribution of Casino Premises Licences) Order 2007, I shall say a word about the order of speaking, which might be helpful. As the House will know, there is no speakers' list, because it is an order. The order will be presented by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. The first amendment will then be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the debate will be on the amendment. I do not expect to hear from the movers of the other amendments, my noble friend Lady Golding and the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Walpole. The debate will then proceed in the normal way. At its conclusion, my noble friend Lord Davies will speak, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and a succession of however many Divisions. I should mention that if the first amendment is carried, that pre-empts the remaining three amendments.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on 30 January the Casino Advisory Panel, following extensive public engagement, published its recommendations of the local authorities that should be permitted to issue the one regional, eight large and eight small casino licences. The panel's recommendations on the large and small casino licences have, I believe, gained general acceptance in both Houses. However, its conclusion on the regional casino licence has proved a little more controversial.
	The source of this controversy is the strength of feeling from two quarters. First, there are those who hold moral objections to gambling. I understand and respect that view; it is held by many across both Houses and beyond. It is in recognition of the many downsides of gambling that we have constructed in the Gambling Act one of the most rigorous regulatory regimes in the world. Secondly, there is the pro-Blackpool group, which is strongly represented in the other House and has one or two representatives in this House. I do not seek to dissuade the former group from their well held beliefs, but let me set out for the pro-Blackpool group and the whole House the rationale behind the order.
	Many local authorities wanted to explore the potential regeneration benefits of new casinos when bids were invited. If it is contended that the vast majority of the British people are loath to see any extension to gambling, I would respond that their local representatives and local authorities made those applications. Twenty-seven local authorities put themselves forward for the single, regional casino licence and 68 authorities bid for the 17 licences as a whole. Because of our precautionary approach on gambling, our policy allowed for a limited number of new casinos to act as a pilot. We made clear that we would ask an independent panel—not Ministers—to recommend the locations for that pilot. Until the panel recommended Manchester, and not Blackpool, there was probably broad consensus in Parliament on that approach.
	Why did we adopt this approach? We wanted to make sure that the decision was based on the facts and evidence and not on politics, which is why the Secretary of State has not simply overturned the panel's recommendation and put forward Blackpool instead of Manchester. That would fly in the face of the accumulated evidence and it would be unfair to every local authority that took part in a published and agreed process in good faith. That principle is one reason why the order is presented in this form today.
	There are other reasons. The intention is to evaluate the impact of this pilot before taking any decisions about the future number and location of any new casinos. That approach has two immediate consequences. The first is the composition of this order. The locations of the 17 new casinos have been chosen to give the evaluation the right mix of locations to measure impact accurately. Secondly, it means that there can be no new casino licences for at least the lifetime of this Parliament; that is, until there is a clear understanding based on rigorous evidence.
	Let me turn to other issues that I know have exercised noble Lords. There have been calls for the order to be split, with a separate order for the regional casino. The Government have resisted those calls. As I have said, the 17 casinos form the pilot. If the Secretary of State had split the order from the outset, accusations could certainly have been made that the Government were cynically manipulating Parliament into voting Manchester down for their own electoral purposes. In that respect, the Government were bound to lose either way, but they are standing firm on the principle that an independent panel reached its conclusions, and we are working on that basis.
	Much has been made of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee report. It expressed reservations on two significant grounds: how the panel interpreted its remit and on destination casinos. We do not think that, on mature reflection, the House will feel that the committee's concerns are well established. The primary consideration we set for the Casino Advisory Panel in making its assessment was to identify locations that would provide the best possible test of social impact. That was the acid test of each bid's merits. We did not ask the panel to identify a location that would reduce problem gambling. Our wider policy, the most rigorous regulation in the world, is addressing that issue and was the basis for passing the Gambling Act and the basis on which it received considerable support in both Houses.
	The Merits Committee also reflected a claim by some that it is perverse to locate the regional casino in deprived residential east Manchester. East Manchester is certainly deprived. I declare a minor interest in that I have a great affection for the eastern part of Manchester, but even more for the north-east borough of Oldham. East Manchester is more deprived than Blackpool. One of the panel's considerations was to identify areas in need of regeneration, so it is not surprising that some of the candidate areas are very deprived. But the panel's job was to recommend an authority, not a site. It is the authority that applies for the licence. It is possible to locate a regional casino in east Manchester without putting it in the very poorest area. That is what the local planning system is for. The same would apply to Blackpool; indeed, its own bid placed the casino in the town centre, next to the town's most deprived ward.
	The other aspect which exercised the Merits Committee was the so-called destination casinos. The argument is that the independent panel has failed because it did not recommend designating a seaside resort to host the regional casino and it therefore ignored the joint scrutiny committee's recommendations. That is to misunderstand the concept of "destination". Manchester is, in its own right, an important destination. The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, who is in his place, will testify that Manchester was the third most important overseas tourist destination in the UK behind London and Edinburgh for every year between 2001 and 2005, with the sole exception of 2002, when it came fourth. It also fails to reflect the Joint Committee's intentions. The committee expected regional casinos to be large-scale entertainment complexes, offering gambling alongside a wide range of non-gambling facilities. Anyone who has been to Manchester in the past 10 years can see that the city is at least as compatible with the concept of a leisure destination casino as any seaside town.
	On the evidence, a panel concluded that Manchester offered a good test of the social impact of a regional casino; at the same time it expressed its reasons why the Blackpool proposal would not. That was the judgment of that independent panel, which included some of the most eminent planning experts in the country. It is on the basis of their judgment that the order recommends Manchester as the site for that casino.
	I will observe the courtesies of the House by listening to the arguments in favour of the amendments tabled today, before briefly, I hope, explaining my attitude towards them. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is very significant, as it would repudiate and negative the order. That has happened only twice since 1975: once on a Rhodesia order—I do not think many of us would reflect on those times with too much enthusiasm—and then on electoral arrangements for the GLA in 2000. Substantial arguments would be needed to persuade unwhipped Members of this House to support the noble Lord's amendment.
	The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Golding calls for the creation of a fresh Joint Committee to look at the Casino Advisory Panel to see what lessons can be learnt for the future. While recognising that the creation and the terms of reference for Joint Committees would be matters for the House authorities if this amendment were passed, the Government are prepared to accept this amendment but would like the committee, in addition to giving Members of both Houses an opportunity retrospectively to examine the panel process, to be forward-looking in its remit.
	I have been clear with the House, and I repeat now, that there will be no more new casinos in the current Parliament because the result of the social impact studies of the 17 pilot casinos, and the result of the next prevalence study, will not be available until 2010. It is not possible to think of additional locations during this Parliament. Proposals for no new casinos will be initiated by this Government in this Parliament. As I have said, the impetus would come from Parliament itself, if it came at all, in the work of the Joint Committee and any subsequent legislative proposals that emerge from it.
	There is no consensus for allowing any more new casinos now and there may never be. We are all too well aware that noble Lords and honourable Members in the other place will express caution about the number of casinos, but it is only right that if a Joint Committee is established, it should be allowed to examine the criteria and conditions that could govern any possible future decision. If the Joint Committee were to decide that a future Parliament might allow another regional casino and recommend a specific location, I do not think that anyone in government would be surprised if that turned out to be Blackpool.
	I hope that the Joint Committee can produce its first report within six months. The Secretary of State will seek to persuade the Chief Whips in both Houses that the Government should make time available in both Chambers for any such report to be debated. I recognise that that does not provide the immediate gain or reassurance that the supporters of Blackpool wish for, and I have no doubt that its case will continue to be made.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking this House to consider a position in which the only issue is the substitution of Blackpool for Manchester, he must make his case. But I am making the case for the order and pilot study to those who, like himself, are so strongly supportive of Blackpool—and of course I respect his opinion on this. I did not doubt for one moment that he would make out the case for Blackpool as strongly as he could. However, he will recognise that when I contend this extraordinary response by local authorities positively to welcome the opportunity for casinos in their areas, I have the right to emphasise that there is considerable public support for this position. Therefore, the reason for any delay would be the cost to the nation.
	I remind the House that many thousands of new jobs and millions of pounds of investment, which are engaged in this very important development, may be put at risk across the country by this exercise.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise that important point. It is also why the Secretary of State has already announced that significant regeneration resources are being released for Blackpool. We are aware that Blackpool shares with a number of our other seaside towns a decline in its local economy in recent years to which we need to pay attention. But the—

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I know that we are becoming rather like the House at the other end, continuously interrupting the Minister, but will he make it absolutely clear whether he does or does not accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, as it is printed on the Order Paper? If he does, please will he say, "Yes, I accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding"?

Lord Clement-Jones: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "that" and insert "this House, taking account of the 13th Report from the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, declines to approve the draft order; considers it desirable that Lords be appointed to join with a committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee to consider the process by which a decision was reached on which licensing authority should issue the regional casino premises licence and to report by 1 June 2007; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take account of the recommendations of any such Joint Committee and to lay regulations including the licensing authorities as set out in the draft order whose responsibility it is to issue the eight large and eight small casino premises licences."

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for introducing the order. He laid out the Government's case as well as he could, but today I believe that he has been put in an invidious position by the Secretary of State failing to separate out the order into two elements—one dealing with the 16 small and large casinos and the other dealing with the so-called super-casino. I do not believe that he is well served either by the vagueness of what he is offering to his own Back Benches.
	Secondly, I pay tribute to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee—its members and in particular its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, whom I am pleased to see in his place—which did such an effective job in scrutinising the process whereby east Manchester was selected by the Casino Advisory Panel, which is the subject of the draft order before us today.
	Why have I tabled my amendment to vary the Government's Motion approving the regulation with the active support of my colleagues? This is very straightforward. First, it has become apparent that there are great problems with the casino advisory panel's remit as laid down in August 2005 after Royal Assent had been given to the Gambling Bill. The Merits Committee's report has done us all a great service in this regard. Secondly, also thanks to the Merits Committee, it has become abundantly clear that there are real problems with how the casino advisory panel interpreted and carried out its remit in producing its report published on 30 January 2007.
	A third reason to be particularly cautious is the fact that the policy context has changed since the Government first introduced the draft Gambling Bill back in 2003, since they issued their statement of national policy in December 2004 and above all since the wash-up on the Gambling Bill prior to the previous general election.
	Perhaps I may take each reason in turn. Each alone gives a reason to remit the regional casino aspect of this regulation to a Joint Committee of both Houses. We would—and I must emphasise this—have preferred the 16 large and small casinos to be the subject of a separate order which we could have supported.
	First, let us take the issue of the terms of reference. These were referred to in the 2004 statement of national policy as follows:
	"the Advisory Panel will be asked to identify areas for the new casinos which will provide: a good range of types of areas, and a good geographical spread of areas across Britain. The Panel will also want to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino. Subject to these criteria, the Panel will be asked to choose areas in need of economic development and regeneration (as measured by employment and other social deprivation factors) and likely to benefit in regeneration terms from a casino".
	Later, the terms of reference changed. Neither the new terms of reference nor the previous terms were debated on the Floor of either House, although my honourable friends did attempt to put the regeneration objective in the Bill as it went the through the other place. By the time the terms were fixed, in August 2005, they were as follows:
	"The primary consideration will be to ensure that locations provide the best possible test of social impact. Subject to this, the criteria will also be: to include areas in need of regeneration"—
	and so forth, and—
	"to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino".
	So in each case the issue of regeneration was to play a subsidiary role. However, as the Merits Committee made clear, the key change made was to make the overriding aim of the panel to choose the site which constituted the,
	"best ... test of social impact".
	It was not the site where harm was to be minimised, as the Government had seemed to promise in their statement of national policy. Nor, as the Merits Committee pointed out, do the terms seem to square with the objectives of the Gambling Act as set out in Section 1 of that Act.
	Secondly, the situation was compounded by the way in which the Casino Advisory Panel interpreted its remit. As the Merits Committee uncovered in its brief but very effective inquiry, the social impact test was actually used to exclude destination casinos. The test was highly imperfect, and the concept was clearly immeasurable at that point, but nevertheless it was used to exclude destination casinos. These, it will be recalled, were considered by the Joint Committee and many experts as giving rise to less casual problem gambling. Professor Crow, the chairman of the panel, admitted as much in his evidence to the Merits Committee. As the key was to be able to measure the social impact, the panel presumably had to choose the toughest, most deprived, disadvantaged and crime-ridden area to achieve this. It is no wonder the Merits Committee said that the CAP had treated its task like a "research exercise".
	It is true that an air of almost academic naivety runs through the CAP report. Blackpool was excluded because the social impact would be "exported". Yet destinations casinos had clearly been preferred by the Joint Committee and experts on problem gambling in terms of least social harm. Indeed, it appears that the panel did not consult the leading expert, Professor Collins of Salford University, on the social impact of gambling at all. It is hardly surprising that the Merits Committee concluded that the order,
	"may imperfectly achieve its objective".
	It sounds like an understatement but it is strong language for this committee.
	This is an important decision we are making today, and I recognise that the Motion I have laid before the House is a strong one. But we need to be particularly cautious in taking the decision about the location of the super-casino. There is rising concern about the growth of gambling and the issue of problem gambling. The number of casinos in total is growing rapidly. We were assured by the Minister, Mr Caborn, during the passage of the Bill, that there would be no more than 150 casinos in the UK in total. There are now some 90 new casinos in the pipeline under the 1968 Act alone. The figure of 150 will be comfortably exceeded, and 250 now looks more likely.
	Advertising of gambling facilities is now being permitted by the new regulations. Gambling on the internet has exploded, little of it regulated here in the UK. Despite promises, services to combat problem gambling have not yet been funded adequately. Above all, since the terms of reference for the CAP were originally mooted, just before the general election in 2005, the number of initial regional casinos has been reduced to one. It looks as though that one casino will not be a pilot but will be the only super-casino, certainly for the next 10 years. The fact is that despite the terms of reference for the one location, which are couched as a test for a pilot, this may not be a pilot at all. In fact, it is highly likely that this one super-casino will be the only super-casino, so the process by which we choose it is absolutely crucial. This is no laboratory test; nor can we leave problem gambling to the planning process. There is no room for error.
	Finally, why remit the regulation to a Joint Committee, and why must the Joint Committee report by 1 June? When it came to scrutinising the draft Gambling Bill, by common consent the Joint Committee did a superb job. We have seen what is possible in just a short space of time from the Merits Committee. We need a new Joint Committee to advise us on whether the process for the selection of east Manchester was correct and, if necessary, to make recommendations for a new process. The order was due to come into effect—perhaps is due to come into effect—on 1 June. If the committee is asked to report by 1 June on whether the process by which the super-casino was chosen was properly conducted, no time will have been lost if it makes no recommendation for change.
	If we could, we would be dealing today with two orders, one dealing with the recommendations on the locations of small and large casinos and one with the super-casino. The Secretary of State, faced with the prospect of today's amendment passing and having received serious advice from constructive Back-Bench Labour Peers, set her face against that, hoping that it would drive us to support the order. My motives in tabling the amendment are not to provide a consolation prize for any town or city; explicitly, this is not "Blackpool or bust", nor is it designed to do down Manchester. It arises out of concern about a process which, for a variety of reasons, has clearly gone very wrong. My amendment suggests a way forward. It is not reliant on vague assurances about the setting up and the remit of a committee, and it is a non-binding Motion. I very much hope that, in due course, noble Lords will support the amendment. I will deal with the other amendments in my winding-up speech. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "that" and insert "this House, taking account of the 13th Report from the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, declines to approve the draft order; considers it desirable that Lords be appointed to join with a committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee to consider the process by which a decision was reached on which licensing authority should issue the regional casino premises licence and to report by 1 June 2007; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take account of the recommendations of any such Joint Committee and to lay regulations including the licensing authorities as set out in the draft order whose responsibility it is to issue the eight large and eight small casino premises licences".—(Lord Clement-Jones.)

Baroness Golding: My Lords, I agree with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said. However, if he had been with me and with many other noble Lords in the past few weeks trying to negotiate something and get something out of the order, he would not be so certain that his amendment would achieve anything.
	I have always been a strong supporter of Blackpool. I can see no good reason why Blackpool should not have been the destination casino. If I thought that supporting the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would achieve anything for Blackpool, I would more than consider supporting it. However, I do not believe that that is possible. Many of us have gone through negotiations that have seemed to produce something for Blackpool and have then not been accepted. We have gone back again and again, and things have altered right up until today at 1.30 pm, when we finally got an agreement that we could consider that would give some hope to Blackpool and to other areas that felt that they had been done down by the agreement.
	I am not critical of the Government for wanting to bring the legislation on gambling up to date. Indeed, I would be critical if they had ignored the real problems of internet and telephone betting, as well as the growth in other forms of gambling. Many in this House are against all forms of gambling; I understand that, but the Government have to live in the real world, as do we. We have to strike a balance between gambling as a legitimate leisure pursuit while mitigating any potential negative consequences of people's desire to gamble.
	I recognise that the Government made some positive moves in the Gambling Act. In addition to the National Lottery Commission and the Financial Services Authority, the Government have established the Gambling Commission to regulate gambling. The financing by the industry of such charities as GamCare, which look after problem gamblers, is also very much welcome, and the increase in money that has lately been guaranteed by the gambling industry is more than welcome. The Government recognise—I agree—that the sweeping under the carpet of the desire of people to gamble is not in anyone's interests. We have to face up to our responsibilities towards people as things are today, not as we wish they were and wishing they would not gamble.
	Having said all that, I have great criticism of how the Government have arrived at their decision to accept the report of the panel and Professor Crow, and especially of its decision to propose Manchester rather than Blackpool as the one regional casino. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for stating so clearly why the panel got it wrong. It demonstrates clearly to me the danger of putting legislation in the hands of people who have little understanding of or responsibility in the outcome of their recommendations. I could go through Professor Crow's report page by page and criticise paragraph by paragraph, but I will not do so, as I am sure that other noble Lords will have much to say on the subject, as did the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in his merits committee's outstanding report to this House.
	I have asked for a Joint Committee to be set up to consider the report of Lord Crow before any decision is arrived at. I am sorry; I meant Professor Crow—he has not yet been made a Lord. The Minister has put forward an interpretation of that request and I am minded to accept it, but we have not quite got there yet. I will certainly recommend people to vote against the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because I fear that if it is carried, it will do Blackpool down and give no satisfaction to anyone, other than the fact that an order that should never have been put forward in this way has been defeated.
	The process was wrong. The Government must recognise that it is for Parliament to make decisions that affect people's lives. The House should have considered the report before it was accepted, and I hope that the Government will learn that lesson. I intend to say no more as I have agreed with my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who has worked on this so effectively with me for many hours over the past weeks, that he will voice our concerns about the process. He was unable to add his name to my amendment because of the rules of the House, but without his help and that of many Members across the House there would have been no hope of getting where we are today.
	The Government have compromised at the last hour, and I am prepared to accept that. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, encourages the House to vote for his amendment, he does no good to anybody, especially Blackpool.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I have tabled my amendment, which is the third on the list, alongside those of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, and noble Lord, Lord Walpole, to demonstrate that the concerns about this order are not party political and are shared by all those who have been involved with the Gambling Act since its inception, and in particular by those of us who were members of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee.
	That committee sat for a long time, took an enormous amount of evidence and produced two reports, the bulk of whose recommendations were accepted by the Government and incorporated into the Bill. Much of the evidence conflicted, as evidence often does, or was not as clear as it might have been. But in one area, in relation to the siting of what are now called "regional casinos", but are more accurately called "resort destination casinos", the evidence was unequivocal in relation to the two key criteria—the likelihood of causing adverse social problems, such as excessive gambling and possible crime, and the potential for regeneration.
	It is in relation to those criteria that there is real concern regarding the Casino Advisory Panel's choice of Manchester, which has led to the furore that has surrounded this order. These issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, said, have been more than adequately dealt with in the excellent report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin—so I shall not examine them now.
	There is no advantage in repeating the conclusions in that report, but two points are crucial. The first relates to Professor Crow's admission that the choice of Manchester was made on the basis that customers to the casino would largely come from the local residential population, and thus the social impact on it was far easier to measure; whereas if the casino was situated in a place such as Blackpool, Great Yarmouth or Bournemouth, where 90 per cent of customers would be tourists or people coming for the primary purpose of gambling, it would be far more difficult to measure the social impact. So the CAP's decision was based on the requirements for academic research, rather than identifying the most appropriate place for a casino. That is an obvious and fundamental flaw.
	In relation to regeneration, the decision creates a further problem. Regeneration is predicated not just on the ability to attract new capital investment to a project but on attracting new income in the future. But if the new casino is sited in an area where it is dependent mainly on customers resident in the locality, rather than on visitors, there will not be any new money, it will simply be a case of recycling existing money—which in the case of east Manchester is not very much, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out. You do not have to be an expert on casinos or regeneration to realise that that is crazy stuff.
	I must make it clear that for me, unlike other speakers, this is not a debate about the merits of Blackpool over Manchester. I hold no remit for Blackpool, nor do I have anything against Manchester. The great Mark Twain wrote that he would like to die in Manchester, because the transition between Manchester and death would be so small as to be hardly noticeable. That is rather unkind but, whatever we have heard today and for all its many merits, it would stretch my imagination a little to describe Manchester as a "destination resort". However many people go through Manchester airport and increase the visitor figures, I have never heard of anyone sunbathing at Old Trafford.
	The evidence submitted to the scrutiny committee, which was apparently accepted by the Government at that time, was that a casino development of this type should never be sited in a city near a residential population, as that would be bound to lead to social problems. It said that it should be sited in a destination resort where the bulk of customers would be tourists. What the CAP has recommended goes completely against that advice. I do not lay the blame for that at Professor Crow's door, but it is pretty clear that the DCMS's terms of reference for that committee and presumably the ongoing communications between the committee and the department were at best careless and at worst downright incompetent.
	Furthermore, the Secretary of State's determination to combine the relatively uncontroversial decisions in relation to siting the eight large and eight small casinos with the decision on the single regional casino was a blatant attempt to bulldoze the order through Parliament. The ensuing row is a consequence of that crass mistake, the responsibility for which lies with the Secretary of State. The idea that there had to be eight, eight and one casinos in the same order is a complete fantasy; that had nothing to do with it at all.
	Following so closely on the shambles of the Olympics funding, the resulting raid on lottery funds and the mess surrounding the sale of the Tote, one can now only conclude that, like the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is simply not fit for purpose, and the sooner it is placed under new management, the better.
	The Casino Advisory Panel's advice was just that: advice. The Secretary of State could quite reasonably have rejected it or, far better, all those weeks ago she could have referred it to an ad hoc Select Committee to resolve the matter. Instead, she has chosen to blunder on, which is why the Government now find themselves in this ridiculous and unnecessary position. This is not an issue of principle, nor is it even a great political issue in the overall scheme of things, but it is an issue of the competence of government.
	On balance, of the three non-fatal amendments, I believe that that of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, is best—it is rather better than mine—because it compels the Government to set up the committee that they should have agreed, and had the opportunity, to set up some weeks ago. If the House decides to proceed with this matter, it is likely that I will not press my own amendment but will vote for that in the name of the noble Baroness.
	The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is of course fatal and, as such, it pushes the conventions of your Lordships' House to, and possibly beyond, its limits. Indeed, it may well remind the Government and another place exactly what would happen on a regular basis if this House were to flex the muscles given to it by democratic election. My inclination, as a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and, unlike some of my noble friends, as a fan of an elected House, is to support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I shall make my decision when I hear the Minister's response—in particular, to three questions.
	First, will he confirm that the order can be reintroduced—I think that that is set out in Sections 175 and 355 of the Act—and, indeed, must be reintroduced if this House rejects it? Secondly, the offer that he made in accepting the noble Baroness's amendment implies that a certain amount of activity will take place in the future in terms of Governments accepting committee reports, which are prepared over several months. Bearing in mind that this matter will probably continue beyond the summer and into the autumn, will he confirm that the Secretary of State's offer to the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, has been rubber-stamped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will play a rather more significant role in these matters as the year progresses? Thirdly, will he confirm that everyone is absolutely clear about the last line of the noble Baroness's amendment, which says that,
	"a Joint Committee to consider the Panel's report in detail before any decision is arrived at with regard to the issuing of casino premises licences",
	and that his offer to accept the amendment means that no casino premises licences will be issued until the committee, which will be set up under the terms of the amendment, is agreed to?

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I speak because I, together with my noble friend Lady Golding, wrote to a number Peers on our side of the House to suggest that unless the Government had a change of heart over the order before us tonight, they should vote against it. I am here this afternoon to explain that they have had a significant change of heart. I hope, therefore, that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be rejected and that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Golding will be accepted on the basis of the assurance given to us.
	There is a threefold alliance, as the Minister said, of people inclined to oppose this order. I cannot call it an "unholy alliance" since the Bishops' Benches are in favour of the alliance, but it is a strange alliance, at least. There are those who are against gambling and casinos; those who do not like the choice of Manchester, and most of them would like the choice to be Blackpool; and there are those, among whom I include myself, who have doubts about the procedure that has been followed. I want briefly to address all three matters.
	I address most briefly of all the case of those against gambling. I am not very good at making the case for it; I have lost the argument every morning over the breakfast table with my wife for the past six months, and I do not expect that I shall win it in your Lordships' House. Anyway, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday I am strongly in favour of casinos because of the regeneration benefits they bring and because they prevent under-the-counter gambling on the internet. On Tuesday, Thursdays and Saturdays I worry about their effect on problem gamblers and the danger of taking money off the poor. So I am not a desperate fan of having any casinos. On Sunday I get a day of rest.
	But, the time for the anti-gamblers to make their case was when this Bill was before Parliament and they were trying to convince the Government not to go ahead with it. What is not acceptable is that when an order under it comes forward—as it was always envisaged one would come forward to name the casinos—the issue of principle is re-opened. That is against the conventions of this House. That has been, as has been pointed out, broken on only two occasions since the 1970s, and it is not the right way to carry forward that argument.
	Secondly, there are those who think that the casino should be in Blackpool rather than Manchester. I am sympathetic to having one in Blackpool, although I listened hard and long to the case for Manchester. In some of the pro-Blackpool propaganda put about—and I relate to a lot of it—the case against Manchester has been hugely overstated so that people think that some uncontrolled den of iniquity is to be erected in east Manchester, to which the poor people of Manchester will go and lose all their money. I think that that is most unlikely.
	The way to get a casino in Blackpool is to have one in Manchester also because they test different properties of casinos. The one in Manchester will test whether an inner city casino has the ill effects some people fear—although I do not believe it will—and the one in Blackpool will test the power of a destination casino to revive a very deprived area.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is a very old friend and close colleague at times, is a great lover of Blackpool. I love both places, but he has chosen that loving Blackpool means hating Manchester. If his Front Bench gets its way this afternoon—and it is sad to see him on the Back-Benches, but we know why he is there for now—and in 10 years' time he is walking down the promenade of Blackpool as it will be if it does not get a casino, perhaps he will remember that it was his vote this afternoon that stopped, as I will demonstrate, a process that in my view will inevitably lead in quite short order to a second super-casino in Blackpool. He must weigh that in his conscience.
	I turn finally to the procedure, which caused me to join my noble friend Lady Golding in opposing this issue. I thought that it was pretty poor that the Secretary of State received this report at nine in the morning and at three o'clock in the afternoon said that she would lay an order before Parliament enforcing it. She said subsequently that she studied it in the four weeks that followed. I am reminded of Lewis Carroll, "Sentence first—verdict afterwards". That was poor, and was one of the reasons why we wanted a Joint Committee to be set up. I do not defend that bit of the process. However, this is where I come to the agreement that has emerged over the past weeks, days and nights of negotiation. I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Davies, who had been speaking for some time and who was trying to get to the end of his remarks for the benefit of the House, did not fully set out for the House where the Government have given way.
	The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, which condemns that haste and which was resisted by the Government, is now accepted by the Government. We were told that there was no way that we could have a Joint Committee because, "We know what it will conclude". The idea was resisted by the Government, but is now accepted by the Government. A review of the way in which the decision was taken and put before the House was rejected by the Government but is today accepted by the Government. The idea that such a review should pave the way for the next stage of the legislation and should look towards the possibility of further casinos was resisted by the Government—my God, to the last trench. Since last night, it has been accepted by the Government. A Minister gave a statement that contemplated consensus in this Parliament for a second casino in Blackpool, although not one that would take effect—rightly, I think—until the next Parliament, and that would lead to regulations in the next Parliament. Again, there is ministerial blood feet deep over that retreat, but retreat they have.
	In my considered view, which I give to the House knowing that it will offend those who are against casinos in principle, if this afternoon the House rejects the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and if as a consequence, with the Government's full agreement, the House accepts the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Golding, for which she has worked so hard, it will set in train an inexorable process that will lead to this House and the other place having the chance early in the next Session to create a second super-casino in Blackpool, if that is the will of the House. I was in government once upon a time, and I remember how reluctant Governments are to change their mind. I pay tribute to the fact that the Government, in accepting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, have admitted that they mishandled it and got it wrong, and have accepted all these changes, which make for a most formidable package.
	If the House votes tonight in favour of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we will get an order for the 16 casinos but we will not move forward on the super-casino in short order or in long order. Indeed, it is very likely that we will never move forward on it. Some quarters of the House will welcome that, others will not; but that is the reality. If the House rejects the noble Lord's amendment, we will have started an inexorable process whereby, unless public opinion or some other great outside factor changes against casinos, it is very likely that the House will get the chance to decide whether it wants a second casino in Blackpool in the light of all the evidence that is available at the time. Given that process, it is very likely that it will get it. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, accept the agreement that has been reached with the Government, and vote enthusiastically to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Golding.

The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the remarks made by the Minister and others about the procedural gravity of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; but I feel the need to speak to the reasons that have made me deeply sympathetic to that amendment and to the concerns underlying it. They are both particular and general. The particular reasons have already been detailed by a number of other noble Lords. We have already heard how the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee of your Lordships' House has exposed some of the confusions and inconsistencies in the terms of reference of the Casino Advisory Panel, especially as those have related to criteria of social impact. The oscillation between discussing these in negative and in positive terms does not encourage the casual reader.
	To take one example from the proceedings of the Merits Committee, I note that the question is left open of how benefits can be secured to local people rather than large investors. That question, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, was answered simply in terms of that being, so to speak, referred to the responsibility of local government to resolve. I find that an inadequate and worrying response.
	Sadly, the general impression that has been given is of a piece of inadequately monitored social experimentation. The very language of "test of social impact" fails to take seriously enough the fact that social impact is not something which comes and goes within 24 hours or which can be written out of the record by another piece of research. It also gives the unfortunate impression of business being somewhat unduly hustled in the parliamentary procedure, on which other noble Lords have spoken more eloquently and extensively than I can.
	My general grounds for unease do not rest primarily on a principled opposition to all forms of gambling in any shape in any place. Belonging to a church which has a mixed record on these matters, I can hardly take the moral ground with too much confidence. My objection is rather to the sleight of hand by which the whole business of the gambling industry has become coupled with the regeneration theme in ways which—I have to be candid—I find quite baffling. We have been reminded already by several noble Lords that terms such as problem gambling conceal a rather more unpalatable and extreme reality, of which some have spoken, in terms of addictive behaviour. While it is undoubtedly true statistically that casino gambling represents a relatively small segment of the overall problem of addictive gambling, none the less it represents a significant part and a social factor whose impact on its immediate environment is not restricted to addictive gambling.
	But how would we react if we were discussing not this particular form of addiction but other forms of addiction? Surely, we should be extremely anxious about monitoring effects, so designing policies that they would be secure in advance, not subjecting them simply to an impact test. We should be very concerned about the resources to be made available for potential victims of this development. We recognise in other contexts that addiction is a nursery of crime as well as of poverty. In our discussion, that should be at the forefront of our minds. Why, if we raise these questions in relation to other forms of addictive behaviour, do we not raise them clearly here?
	In conclusion, I should like to go back to regeneration. I have said that I find it a puzzling word to use in connection with this theme. I wonder whether the undoubted enthusiasm of some local authorities for the presence of casinos in their midst has something to do with the absence of other viable forms of regeneration policy proposed to them. Institutions that can encourage criminality and intensify irresponsibility are poor allies of social and civic regeneration. It may be—I believe that it is—that we cannot simply turn our eyes away from the social reality of gambling and the desire of people to gamble. I should be the last to wish this brushed under the carpet—to use a phrase that has already been used today in your Lordships' House. None the less, I am left with these questions about the procedure by which this order has been brought before us and the advice on which it is based. I hold no great brief for Blackpool, but one thing that might be observed about these criteria is that they lack that through-and-through consistency which is one of the better known aspects of one of the better known products of Blackpool.
	I am left then with asking who in the community at large actively initiates and wants these proposals, as opposed to selecting them as the least bad alternatives in situations where regeneration is an urgent and serious priority. My belief is that that urgent priority is not best met by going down the road that is before us in the order proposed.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, for 28 years I represented Blackpool South in the other place, and I shall refer to regeneration in a moment. As my long-term friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches has mentioned, the business of Blackpool is entertainment and tourism. Those activities form by far the biggest industries in the town. It is the result of the railways. In the middle of the 19th century the town of Blackpool was created by the railways. Before then, Blackpool had been just a little fishing village. People could come by train from the whole of the north of England and, indeed, from further away. Especially at the weekend, between April and October, people came in their crowds. I recall seeing the three railway stations full of trains, and the trains full of people. That growth was the result of generation. It was generation by very intelligent and brave people who developed the new industry of tourism, which did not exist before the trains came. They built the Tower, the Winter Gardens and various other important attractions in the town. The other feature of the town has been entertainment. In the past entertainers like Les Dawson and others came every summer to perform on Blackpool Pier and were an enormous attraction. That no longer takes place.
	What has been happening to Blackpool? The town needs regeneration projects for a number of reasons which go beyond the scope of its powers. The most important is the development in the 1970s of tourism in warmer and sunnier climates. That was not the fault of Blackpool. Equally important was the increasing mobility of the British public. When I first went there in the 1960s, I suppose a minority of British people had motor cars. Now they almost all have them, so they do not have to go to Blackpool for two weeks at a time, reserving their place six months ahead. If on a Thursday evening the weather forecast for Blackpool is good, visitors can call their favourite guest house to reserve a room for the weekend. Those are two of the reasons why there has been a decline in the fortunes of the town. Another factor is the growth of television, because people now watch television far more than they used to. It takes them away from Blackpool. Average earnings in Blackpool are £100 a week less than the national average, which is another factor illustrating the important need for regeneration.
	All this means that Blackpool is very keen on having a resort casino, and it has been working on the project for quite a long time. A resort casino is important because it creates less human hardship. Indeed, the general view across the board and every source on the subject suggests that such casinos are less harmful than urban casinos. That is certainly the view of both the Merits Committee and the Casino Advisory Panel. The resort casino is characterised by the fact that people have to come from a long distance to visit it. They need to make preparations for their visit to the casino and thus they think about what they are going to spend. That is in contrast with the urban casino situated in the middle of a town. People can then drop in for a flutter on impulse. That is why in the United States the successful casinos have been resort casinos.
	The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee quotes Professor Collins from Salford University, an expert on tourism, as saying,
	"destination resort casinos, with a very wide catchment area, are more likely to bring greater benefits with less costs to local communities than are urban casinos whose customers come mostly from within the jurisdiction".
	That confirms the point I am making.
	In that same report, the chairman of the committee asked Professor Crow, the chairman of the panel:
	"If I recollect, you thought, for example, that it was easier to test the social impact in Manchester than it would be for Blackpool because Blackpool's population going to the casino would come from a wider area ...
	Professor Crow: Yes.
	Chairman: ... does that not mean that in practice you tended to knock out any consideration of a destination casino on that ground?
	Professor Crow: If by "destination casino" we mean one where most of the customers come from a long distance ... Yes.
	Chairman: So your interpretation of the meaning of the terms of reference that you were given was effectively that the best possible test for methodological reasons made it virtually impossible for you to recommend to the Government that there should be a destination casino?
	Professor Crow: Yes"—
	thus eliminating Blackpool in a sentence.
	If the chairman of the panel was misguided in that context, he seems to have regarded the choice of Manchester as a guinea-pig that would be testing the effects of an urban casino on the human people in that city. But if there is going to be a guinea-pig, there should be something to test that guinea pig against. The point about the resort casino is that if there is only one, there is no comparison you can make. It would be much better, if there is going to be a resort casino, for there to be another one as well so that proper conclusions could be drawn. One can test the merits of resort casinos as opposed to urban casinos with regard to the smaller towns, because they are two different types and you can compare one with the other; seven resort casinos and nine urban casinos.
	In rejecting Blackpool, the panel was also rejecting the views of the Northwest Regional Development Agency, the Regional Assembly and the regional economic strategy, all of which regarded Blackpool as the most important place for a regional casino.

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. Many of the things he touched on are in the Report on Coastal Towns, which I recommend for Easter reading. I freely accept that some of the issues we talk about do not just apply to Blackpool; indeed, the bulk of what I want to say is not a plea for Blackpool but to address the issue before us—this order.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said, Blackpool has a unique place in our social history. A combination of the electric tramway, the illuminations, the tower and the pleasure beach made Blackpool take a quantum leap in providing leisure for working people at the end of the 19th and most of the 20th centuries. But since the 1950s, Blackpool has been in decline. One consequence of the drop in visitor numbers, which is mirrored in the coastal towns report, is that the price of hotels and boarding houses goes down, as does the investment in them and the price they charge. The normal visitors stop coming and these places are populated by people on social security benefits. That distorts the figures for central Blackpool. The DSS residents of rundown boarding houses are quite a different problem from that found in east Manchester.
	The problem found by all seaside resorts is how to kick-start regeneration. Nine years ago, well before the Government got their hands on this, a man called Marc Etches, who was employed in Blackpool, came forward with the idea of a Las Vegas-style destination casino. Tessa Jowell said very proudly in the House that she does not want a Las Vegas in the UK. Well, I do, and for this reason. A couple of weeks ago Tim Henman was playing in the Last Vegas tennis tournament and it will not be long before Tiger Woods and his colleagues go there for a golf tournament. Las Vegas today is one of the biggest sports centres in the United States and the centre of its entertainment industry; it is the biggest centre for conferences and exhibitions and is becoming one of the growth centres for corporate headquarters. Gambling is a minority occupation in Las Vegas.
	Those of us who backed regeneration through a super-casino saw it in terms of a much broader-based regeneration. It annoys me that everybody thinks we are talking about a single building. We are talking about redeveloping something like two square miles of central Blackpool, with conference centres, restaurants and hotels. To the question, "How can that happen?", the answer is that it has happened in other places in the world. Casinos are a catalyst—that has been proved. I went to Niagara, which showed many of the same signs of declining from its high point in the 1950s when it was the favourite destination for honeymoons in the United States. A casino has given it a new life and new occupation. Money has also been spent on a 30-mile environmental park, broadening the context. The idea that we are talking about packing zombies into closed centres is just not true.
	We were talking about the expertise of the casino panel. The Blackpool master plan was backed by Sir Peter Hall, one of our great town planners. The idea has always been not to have a gambling centre but to regenerate Blackpool and get its back to its heyday as a world-class holiday destination.
	We are supposed to accept the findings of the Casino Advisory Panel as holy writ, but it is worth remembering that the Royal Commission on Gambling and the Joint Select Committee produced reports which Ministers picked at but did not accept as a whole. Only this advisory panel has suddenly taken on this new role. Yet, as it says on the tin, it is only an advisory panel.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, emphasised not once but three times when he introduced the order on 30 January:
	"My Lords, as I have indicated, the final decision will rest with the other place and this House".—[Official Report, 30/1/07; col. 174.]
	It has never been in any doubt that that has been the case.
	I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, and what she has tried to do, and to Gordon Marsden and Joan Humble, Labour MPs in the other place. They have worked hard and long to try to get some sense out of the Government; but they know the difference between a fatal Motion and what the noble Baroness has put down and that is why they accept it. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, never uses one word when 10 will do but he knows and I know that when the noble Baroness's resolution goes through the Government can implement the licence for Manchester. If I am wrong, let him say it, preferably in a few words, and that the Government are going to wait for it—but he and I know that that is not the case.
	I know that Conservative and Cross-Bench Members will be nervous about whether we are breaking conventions. When we passed the recent measure on conventions, we retained the right to say no. One time when we have the right to say no is when a committee of our House, which is a whistle-blowing committee and is supposed to look at these issues for us, actually blows the whistle. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and his colleagues. It is not the most thrilling or exciting of committees, but boy did it do its job this time—and I pay tribute to it for that. We set up a committee like that and ask it go through the painstaking task of going through piece after piece of secondary legislation, then it suddenly brings forward a stunner such as the report that the committee has made. To say that the conventions of this House mean that we cannot do anything about it would make me think hard about the worth of the merits committee. It is there to do a job and, by gum, it has done it.
	As the committee pointed out, what it winkled out of the professor was that he changed the rules as he went along. As was clear by the time he had given his evidence, what the Crow review should have said was that Blackpool should not have applied—because it was working to a different context.
	I do not want to detain the House too long, but I shall take up the point about the activity of Councillor Bate, a Liberal councillor in Blackpool, who seems to have got very active in recent days. I ask noble Lords to look at the list of people supporting him and particularly at the name, "Noble Organisation", which is a company based in Gateshead. If you want to see a gambling shed, go to Coral Island on the Blackpool Golden Mile, owned by the Noble Organisation. Almost every television company that wants to show how tacky Blackpool has become starts off with Coral Island. I went there recently and saw it packed to the gunnels with gaming machines, sucking in the vulnerable and sucking out money from the town and making no contribution at all. I contrast that with what a super-casino would have brought in—massive new investment and the kind of training that is already taking place at Fylde FE College for young people to work in the new industries.

Lord McNally: therefore, I shall say a few words on how we shall vote. We are talking to a very wise old House. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Golding, that if the amendment of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is carried, of course the Government Whips will say, "Apocalypse now; it's all over. There is nothing else we can do. You've destroyed it all". That is what Government Whips do. I was a member of a Government who were regularly defeated in the 1970s. However, we dusted ourselves down, looked at the new situation and came forward with a new proposal.
	We need to be clear about two issues. First, does this House approve of the decision in favour of Manchester? If noble Lords do not, they should vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. Secondly, if not Manchester, where? That is not a matter to be decided tonight but could be put before a Select Committee. That is the opportunity that the House has, and it should take it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I was saying, this extensive debate has covered all the issues on the order more than adequately. I will address shortly the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and that of my noble friend Lady Golding. I want to respond to one or two other contributions, particularly as I was asked some direct questions. There was no more direct question than the one asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had signed up to this government policy. This is government policy therefore all members of the Government subscribe wholeheartedly and enthusiastically to it.
	I was grateful to the noble Lord and his noble friend who has just spoken from the Front Bench for reminding us that this House has its proper responsibilities as a revising Chamber. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Filkin and his committee for identifying issues relating to the order and process, which, as I indicated, the Government have appreciated. That is why we are looking forward to an additional stage with regard to certain aspects of policy process in this area, but we must be careful not to override the conventions of this House. We must recognise that the other House is debating the order, and while it is right and proper that the Government are subject to scrutiny, it would be unfortunate if it were suggested that the order should be repudiated.
	I was grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who as a Minister took great responsibility for piloting the gambling legislation through the House and therefore is extremely well equipped to comment on subsequent developments with the Act. I was grateful to him for indicating that we should not overdramatise the impact of casinos. I recognise that the extension of gambling facilities requires proper regulation. That was the whole basis of the Bill, which was supported in this House and in the other place by significant majorities.
	The Government recognised that the expansion of gambling in this country, which has increased in recent years, is not related to casinos at all. We have not got the order in place yet, so no new casinos have been built. We have had some small extension of casinos under the old legislation, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought to strike fear into the House. The number of casinos has gone up from 138 to 139. Casinos must be put in a proper framework. It is because we foresaw the expansion of online gambling and various other gambling outlets that we were so concerned to put in place a regulatory structure for gambling, to minimise crime attached to gambling and to provide safeguards for the vulnerable, particularly children.
	I have been challenged on why the Government did not respond to the fact that the choice of Manchester over Blackpool was not universally popular. Is it not strange that politics are such that, because we were not taking a political decision, no one has mentioned the Dome? The word has not crossed anyone's lips; I scarcely thought that I would be the first to mention it. If we had been involved in a political decision, if the Government had called in the independent panel and said, "We have second thoughts on all this", I have not the slightest doubt that every political current that obtained before the panel reported would have become vigorous and vibrant again. We would not have been locked into a two-way controversy between Blackpool and Manchester; the Dome would certainly have featured strongly. There are others with considerable claims as well.
	That is why it should be respected that the Government gave an independent panel a job with specific reference in the context of the Gambling Act, and the panel fulfilled its obligation. I recognise, in particular with the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Blaker, that there are old affinities and loyalties regarding Blackpool. I also recognise the problems of other seaside resorts that applied for casinos, but we know that Blackpool has particular difficulties. As I said, the issue as far as the Government are concerned is what we can do to help Blackpool. The Secretary of State has indicated today that fresh resources are to be directed towards Blackpool. The answer is not to overturn the recommendation of the independent panel and play politics with the process.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	In 2000, the Government restored democratic, citywide government to London. They established the Greater London Authority with a directly elected mayor and Assembly to provide strong, accountable leadership for the capital—leadership which had been noticeably absent since the Conservative Government so mistakenly abolished the GLC 14 years earlier.
	This was a change that Londoners themselves wanted. Londoners in every borough voted overwhelmingly in favour of establishing the mayor and Assembly in the referendum of 1998. The creation of the GLA fulfilled the Government's commitment to put Londoners back in charge of the way in which their city was run. Just as we delivered a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales, so we introduced a new structure of London government that has helped London's resurgence in the age of globalisation. These reforms have provided a firm foundation for London's unprecedented economic success in recent years, but they also keep faith with the heritage and stature of the city.
	London is a truly global city and has never been more vibrant and more successful. Its economy is larger than that of many European countries. It drives the national economy. It accounts for 40 per cent of the UK's export growth and 18 per cent of our GDP. Its financial and business service sectors are increasingly challenging New York for the title of the world's financial capital.
	But of course London is so much more. In a world where new cities are being planned on an extravagant scale and historic cities are facing enormous challenges, it is perhaps the most exciting, diverse and vibrant city on the planet. It is the home of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. That is why London is growing so fast. Its population has increased by more than 700,000 in the past 15 years and it is forecast to grow by a further 1.1 million over the next 20 years. That is a million more people who will need homes, jobs, schools, public services and green spaces, and another million people who will add to the pressures on London's transport systems, natural resources and waste services. The cause for most optimism, however, is that London has the momentum of success. Earlier this month, the Times, in drawing comparisons between New York and London, observed:
	"New York has the nostalgia, London the future. New York defines the metropolitan, London the cosmopolitan".
	But, equally crucially, history is littered with cities which took their success for granted. London must have strong leadership which is not only capable of meeting the challenge of growth and success but is also capable of defeating the profound and historic inequalities which mean that, even now, three of the five most deprived local authority areas in England are in London, and London, paradoxically, has the highest unemployment of any region in the UK.
	The devolution of power from central government to London, in which many in your Lordships' House were involved through the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill in 1999, transferred power from Whitehall to City Hall. That has been central to London's success. Almost seven years on, the strong mayoral model has given the capital a powerful voice on the national and international stage and has played a crucial role in winning the 2012 Olympics for London. Londoners are clear that the creation of the mayor and Assembly has led directly to improved strategic services and a better quality of life for all those who live and work in the capital. Of course, not everyone agrees with the mayor's decisions, but that is the nature of democracy. Londoners are clear about what the mayor is responsible for and know who to hold to account for the effective leadership of London.
	The congestion charge, for example, has reduced congestion in central London by more than 20 per cent and generated extra income to improve public transport across the capital. The number of people using London's buses has risen by more than a third, thanks to service improvements. That, in itself, is part of a multi-billion pound programme of investment in public transport in the capital. Significantly, police numbers have increased substantially, crime is down and there is now a neighbourhood policing team in every ward in London.
	What has been put in place has been shown to work. But, as the London Plan made clear in 2004, continuing economic success brings with it significant challenges. First, there is the challenge of strategic capacity: accommodating growth and making the best possible use of available land. Secondly, there is the challenge of housing, not just to meet today's pressures, but also to plan for growth in the longer term—720,000 new households, in sustainable communities in the capital.
	It is a truism to say that we need to achieve a step change in the supply of housing and build more new homes, especially affordable housing that offers Londoners the opportunity of a home at a price within their means. That challenge sits with the wider challenge, of course, of building the homes that people need across the wider south-east, so that young people are not priced out of the housing market for life. Rich parents, able to provide a deposit, are no substitute for an affordable housing policy.
	Evidently, more also needs to be done to tackle poverty and deprivation through investment and regeneration, to reduce the glaring inequalities in wealth, health and opportunity, which often co-exist within and between neighbouring areas of the capital. Therefore, we have to improve the planning process to ensure the best use of scarce land resources in the capital. That means ensuring that the London Plan is delivered; that London gets the key developments it needs to maintain and enhance its economy; and that London acts more sustainably and responsibly in using scarce resources and disposing of its waste.
	Finally, there are new, global challenges. First and foremost is the threat of climate change. We need to work together to reduce carbon emissions and move towards a low-carbon economy. We need to build on London's already fast-growing reputation at the vanguard of efforts to combat climate change and as a leading international city in this area. To meet present and future challenges, the Government reviewed the powers of the GLA in 2005. Devolution has given power back to Londoners, made the city's strategic services more democratically accountable, and created a strong relationship between Londoners and the mayor and the Assembly.
	However, now is the right time to devolve more to London, ensuring that the right powers exist at the right level of governance, giving the mayor a stronger voice and complementing that by strengthening the Assembly's role and raising its profile. We consulted extensively on the proposals for additional powers. We considered carefully more than 300 responses to the consultation and we did so with an open mind about what the final package of additional powers should include. We came forward with that strong, balanced package of additional powers for the mayor and the Assembly, most of which is set out in the Bill. The Bill and other legislation, such as the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill currently before the other place, will ensure that the right decisions are taken at citywide and local level and the GLA and London boroughs each have the appropriate set of powers to get the job done.
	I turn now to the part of the Bill that deals with greater democratic accountability. The Bill makes important changes which will strengthen the visibility and vital role of the Assembly to complement the mayor's enhanced powers. We are strengthening the contribution that the Assembly makes to the mayor's policy framework. The mayor will be subject to a new duty to have regard to responses by the Assembly and functional bodies to consultation on drafts or revisions of his strategies. He will have to respond in writing to the Assembly. He will have to set out which of its comments he accepts for implementation of the strategy and, where he does not, he will have to explain why not.
	We are also strengthening the Assembly's scrutiny role. The Assembly will hold not-binding confirmation hearings with preferred candidates for key appointments that the mayor intends to make. We are making sensible changes to the arrangements for appointing GLA staff. The mayor and the Assembly will jointly appoint the authority's three statutory posts. The head of paid service will appoint most other GLA staff, putting the authority on a similar footing to local authorities generally.
	We are also providing discrete budgets for the mayor and the Assembly as part of the wider consolidated budget for the authority and the functional bodies. That change will make the Assembly's expenditure more transparent, and will give the Assembly more assurance and control over its own resources. It will, for example, be able to set its own budget, subject to specific constraints, by amending by a two-thirds majority the Assembly final draft budget proposed by the mayor.
	To improve the lives of ordinary Londoners, we need decent affordable homes. In terms of quality of life in the capital, that is probably the greatest challenge. Providing that, as the Barker reports on housing and land use proved, means that the planning system too has to work to its full strength and potential. Boroughs presently have, and will continue to have, a critical role to play in both housing and planning in London, but we also have to strengthen the mayor's capacity to identify and promote consistent policies that recognise that, while the boroughs retain their vital independence, both those services have implications which are London-wide because Londoners move. They move because they want better jobs; they want to work closer to their jobs; they want a different choice of schools; or they want to be near to their families. Housing policies in one borough inevitably impact on another. Inner-London housing policies have a direct effect on outer-London boroughs and across the south-east.
	The changes in housing are significant. We all know that London faces serious housing pressures due to rising demand and rising house prices. The lowest 25 per cent of house prices in London are still over eight and a half times the lowest quartile earnings. I am pleased to say that there is a great deal of consensus about the action needed to tackle those pressures: we need more market housing and, crucially, more affordable housing—shared ownership, low-cost home ownership or social housing for rent. Therefore, we need both public sector housing investment decisions and the planning system to work effectively together to deliver that. That is more likely to be achieved by future arrangements whereby the mayor will take over the role of the Regional Housing Board.
	The Bill puts the mayor's housing strategy on a statutory footing. He will draw up the housing strategy for London and will therefore be able to link it fully with his planning and transport strategies. The mayor will make spending recommendations in his strategy, including a broad outline for funding for new, affordable housing supply in London. The Housing Corporation will put together an affordable housing programme for the capital. In doing so, it will be required to have regard to the mayor's housing strategy, ensuring the programme best delivers in line with those priorities. Those changes will enable the mayor, rather than central government, to set the strategic and coherent vision for housing in London; to decide London's key housing priorities across the capital; and to encourage the boroughs and other stakeholders to act strategically in tackling the housing pressures. Most importantly, it will encourage the delivery of more housing, including affordable housing.
	Some concerns have been expressed about how the mayor's new housing powers will impact on the role of the boroughs. I reassure noble Lords that the boroughs will continue to lead on housing in their own areas. The mayor will not take over the boroughs' legitimate lead role in housing, but boroughs' local housing strategies will need to be in general conformity with the mayor's strategy. It is not a new concept. Borough development documents must already be in general conformity with the London Plan; that is, they must not include an inconsistency or omission that causes significant harm to the implementation of the London Plan. The same principle should apply to housing. Local housing strategies should not include or omit policies which could seriously undermine the implementation of the London housing strategy. That is a sensible provision, ensuring that the whole of London moves in the same broad direction in tackling housing pressures. Again, however, it also gives the boroughs continuing and significant local discretion to develop specific housing policies to meet local needs. While it is surely right that London is able to decide its own housing priorities within a national framework, this reform also gives the opportunity for the mayor to provide real vision in tackling London's housing challenges on a city-wide basis.
	I shall now outline the provisions strengthening the mayor's planning role. I shall be clear why we are proposing change; I assure noble Lords that it is not about punishing boroughs for some failure, or undermining their crucial role in representing their communities. Change is needed to ensure that we have a planning system in London fit for the eventualities of the 21st century, reflecting the unique governance arrangements in the capital. As noble Lords know, the mayor is responsible for preparing the London Plan, which sets out the key strategic policies for the future direction of the development of London. It seeks to promote London, to maintain and enhance its world status, but much of its success or otherwise is determined through individual decisions on planning applications. The mayor cannot currently directly ensure the policies in his London Plan are implemented. In future, boroughs will, as now, lead in deciding these applications but their focus is rightly local. Some planning applications, however, raise issues of wider importance that need a capital-wide, regional perspective in deciding their outcome. The changes we propose will achieve this in a balanced and proportionate way. I am delighted that they have the broad support of London First and the CBI, representing London's business community.
	We should remember that this involvement in planning decisions is not new. Since 2000, the mayor has had the power to step in and turn down large-scale, strategic developments that would go against the London Plan. Fears have been expressed that the mayor interferes in too many cases. Not so. In reality, the mayor only sees around 300 of London's most strategically important planning applications each year; 90,000 applications are made to boroughs and he sees one in 300. Of these, he has, on average, directed refusal of three a year, which is one in 30,000. These include applications which would have resulted in the loss of green belt or which failed to deliver adequate affordable housing. It has hardly been a heavy-handed or disproportionate use of power.
	The mayor should be able to ensure boroughs take forward his London Plan policies in their own local plans in a timely manner. He should also have a positive power to ensure that key applications reflect strategic, as well as local, priorities so that Londoners get the development they need, such as affordable housing and waste facilities. Our proposals will achieve these objectives in a responsible and effective way that fully respects the important role of the London boroughs.
	The detail on how the new power will work in practice will be set out in a revised Mayor of London order, which we published in draft form on 9 January to help inform the scrutiny of the Bill in the other place. Ministers in the other place made clear the importance of achieving the right thresholds which trigger potential interventions, and the right process. In the other place, we also made clear the Government's willingness to listen to achieve this. We published the draft order only after discussions on the proposals, in particular with London councils representing the interests of the London boroughs and London First, representing private sector interests in London.
	We fully understand the crucial importance of ensuring the right balance in the mayor's role between protecting against development which could harm strategic policies and allowing development to go ahead. We have already listened, and I can tell noble Lords that we have decided to change our original proposals in some respects. We have listened to the arguments expressed in the other place and agree that the new power should not apply to the vast majority of thresholds set out in parts 3 and 4 of the schedule to the draft order. These relate to proposed developments that are in conflict with development plan policies in some way, but are of a scale that is not in itself strategically important. On consideration, we agree with those who have argued that the mayor's approach to these developments should be whether they cause such harm that they should be refused rather than be allowed.
	In practice, this means, for example, that the mayor will continue to be able to direct refusal of applications for development on playing fields or in green belt, but he could not take over those applications and decide to approve them. This important change means that the mayor's new power will focus on the most important applications which, by their scale or critical importance, raise issues that go to the heart of implementing the London Plan. Those are set out in parts 1 and 2 of the schedule to the draft order. They include large scale housing schemes and waste treatment facilities.
	One important point is that this will be a two-stage process. The thresholds in the draft order simply identify applications as being of potential strategic importance which must be referred to the mayor for his views. Those thresholds are defined, as now, by height and volume, but this does not mean that each application which meets those thresholds is genuinely strategic; far from it. This is determined by the test set out in Article 8 of the draft order, applied by the mayor only when the borough has made a draft decision on the application. To justify taking over an application, the mayor must demonstrate that the test is satisfied. He must show that a development is of such a nature and scale that there would be a significant impact on the implementation of the London Plan.
	Noble Lords will know that we consulted extensively on a series of different possible tests and criteria, and are committed to consulting further on the draft order once Parliament has concluded its scrutiny of the Bill. We remain open to responses and ideas on how the content of the order might be improved; for example, whether there is a convincing case in favour of a change or additions to the test. I know that noble Lords will want to know that it is also critical that the mayor uses his new powers in an open and transparent way. Of course, the mayor will act as an individual decision maker and cannot act in the same way as planning committees, but we are already providing for the mayor to publish reasons for his decisions so that the public can see how he has reached them.
	We will also ensure that, where the borough or applicant wishes to, the mayor will hear oral representations from them on the proposal in public. He will also be able to hear representations from other people if he chooses. This will obviously not be in the form of a public inquiry, but goes further than the requirements on boroughs, which are not obliged to allow people to speak at planning committees. There are even additional safeguards to further strengthen his powers in an open, fair and effective way, by ensuring that, where practicable, provisions from the Local Government Act 1972 on access to reports and other documentation will now apply to the mayor's planning functions. I hope it is clear that we are listening and are proposing a balanced package of proposals. We will continue to listen to views about the detail of the draft order. We are willing to make changes where appropriate, and we will consult further this year before the order is finished.
	I now come to the remaining elements. Decent housing is fundamental to healthy lives. The Bill enhances the mayor's role in improving the health of Londoners with a new focus on health inequalities. Levels of health in London may not be worse than the rest of the country, but there are stark differences in the health and life expectancy of Londoners. The health gaps in London, which have always scarred historic London, reflect levels of deprivation and unemployment and standards of housing as well as lifestyle and behaviour. While the mayor is not responsible for health policy or the delivery of health services, which remain with the Department of Health and the NHS in London respectively, he is responsible, directly or indirectly, for some of the major determinants of Londoners' health that are outside the responsibility of the NHS. The Bill therefore requires the mayor, working closely with the health adviser to the GLA and the NHS in London, to prepare a new health inequalities strategy to lead the drive to reduce London's stark health inequalities and improve levels of health in London's most disadvantaged communities.
	There is also provision to strengthen the mayor's role in London's cultural life in one specific aspect. We will devolve the Government's responsibilities for funding and governance of the Museum of London to the mayor. The City of London's role in respect of the museum is not affected, and the board will be directly accountable to the mayor and the Corporation of London.
	The mayor will also acquire new powers of appointment to a number of cultural and sporting bodies in London: the London regional council of Arts Council England, the English Sports Council's London regional sports board and Museums, Libraries and Archives London. These new powers do not require statutory provision, but the Bill will require the mayor to make his appointments promptly.
	Finally, I turn to the important provisions on climate change and waste. The mayor already has a strong environmental role. Indeed, promoting the improvement of the environment is one of the principle purposes of the GLA. The major prepares strategies on municipal waste management, noise, biodiversity and air quality. The present mayor has already shown leadership in this area. He set up the London Climate Change Agency in partnership with the private sector, and it has placed London at the vanguard of work globally to tackle climate change. Last month, he published a climate change action plan that detailed how London can contribute to tackling the scourge of climate change.
	Noble Lords will be aware of the draft Climate Change Bill that was published by the Government earlier this month. It is the first of its kind in the world, makes the UK the first country to set a long-term legal framework to reduce emissions over the next 45 years and beyond and provides the means to achieve that. The Bill will be subject to extensive consultation and debate. We aim to introduce a final Bill later in the year.
	Our cities are particularly vulnerable because, as urban heat islands, they reflect the intensified effects of climate change. London has a major contribution to make towards delivery of the long-term national framework which the Climate Change Bill will put in place and towards meeting the goals, that we all share, of tackling climate change and improve the use of energy.
	The Bill provides the means for the mayor, through innovative legislation, to lead the work in London to combat climate change, building on the GLA's well earned reputation for being at the forefront internationally on work to reduce harmful emissions. It will ensure a London-wide programme of action to lower emissions of carbon dioxide and ensure that London adapts to the unavoidable effects of climate change.
	The Bill places a duty on the mayor and the Assembly to address climate change. The mayor is further required to prepare two strategies: one on climate change mitigation and energy, making clear how he will promote a reduction in emissions from sources such as surface transport and the efficient production and use of energy, and the other covering adaptation to climate change containing his policies and proposals for adaptation to the effects, actual and expected, of climate change. These provisions will help to establish London as an important model for carbon management for other major world cities.
	The Bill also contains important measures to strengthen the mayor's role in managing London's waste within current delivery structures. It strengthens the requirement on London's waste authorities to deliver their waste functions in general conformity with the mayor's municipal waste management strategy. It also makes changes to ensure that waste authorities inform the mayor in advance of all tenders for waste contracts. These provisions, together with other, non-statutory changes announced last July as part of the outcome of the GLA review, will encourage the mayor and the boroughs to work co-operatively to improve performance on waste disposal and minimisation and recycling.
	As New York magazine stated recently:
	"If Paris was the capital of the nineteenth century and New York of the twentieth, London is shaping up to be the capital of the 21st."
	The Government restored democratic, city-wide government to London. We have given the capital strong leadership, given London back its voice and allowed Londoners to decide the best way forward. The mayor and the Assembly have been a success and have got to grips with many of the capital's deep-seated problems.
	The Bill sets out a series of sensible, incremental reforms to the powers of the mayor and the Assembly following the review of the GLA's powers and functions. It was a comprehensive review that engaged Londoners fully in the debate. It is interesting to reflect that what London is asking for is no more than many mayors of global cities already have. Many city leaders have strong powers on planning and housing, for example. We are seeking to put the powers of the Mayor of London on a similar footing.
	I am glad that so many measures in this Bill have already been warmly welcomed. Devolving more power from central government to London—from Whitehall to City Hall—is supported by Londoners, London councillors and London businesses. I recognise that some specific proposals in the Bill and the accompanying secondary legislation will raise questions. We are listening to those concerns. However, I am confident the Bill provides the basis for consensus on the right way forward for London and that, with further work on the secondary legislation, we will be able to build agreement on the right set of reforms to build on the GLA's success, give further devolution to London and enable the mayor and the Assembly to get on with the job of delivering more for Londoners. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Andrews.)

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Her introduction took some time, but it was comprehensive. She made some announcements about the direction in which it will proceed in this House. I assume that some of that will require amendments from the Government. We will see them as we come along.
	In some ways, it seems no time at all since the Greater London Authority was set up, although it was some seven years ago. In other ways, it seems like a lifetime since the mayor imposed his standards on London. Some Londoners have welcomed that, but others watch his latest wheezes warily and understand that when he consults them he does not often pay the slightest notice to what they say. As predicted when the original Act was passed, the Assembly does not have the firm controlling hand on anything that the mayor does. The expectation that the cost of the Greater London Authority would be severely limited was a ghastly joke.
	The cost of the precept levied by the mayor is now well over £350 in Band D. It amounts to over one-third of the total council tax in my borough, which has held its own tax rate for the third year running, so the GLA has not proved to be a cheap addition to London government. The new Bill is now set to extend the major's power and influence, most controversially by devolving responsibilities of central government, particularly in housing and planning, to the major. The Minister will not be surprised that there are significant areas in the Bill about which we have considerable reservations. Those are the areas that I shall concentrate on today.
	The interrelationship between mayor and the Assembly has been the one of most difficult aspects of the 1999 Act, and it threatens to be so again, unless the Government can engage in serious and reasoned discussion of the provisions laid before the House today. We support the Assembly's increased powers of scrutiny, which are essential if it is to improve its ability to mark the mayor's footsteps. We all recognise that the Assembly has done what it can, given the powers it has, but we do not believe that even this Bill gives it what it requires to make sure that the mayor is properly accountable to London. In particular, we do not believe that the appointment of senior staff should pass from the elected members to the head of paid service. We support the Assembly having its own budget, but we will be moving amendments to ensure that the mayor cannot manipulate the amount it receives, and in relation to the system of floors and ceilings—which could potentially mean that he was able to deal with it adversely—the means by which the budget can be increased and decreased.
	We will also be seeking to ensure that the Assembly has greater control over the mayor's budget. It can currently make amendments only if they are agreed by a two-thirds majority. We consider that that should be done by a simple majority, as the voting system by which members are elected gives no party a majority on the Assembly. We would wish to see the two-thirds majority for the Assembly lowered to a simple majority across the board. The mayor argues that his mandate comes from the electorate of London, but the same is equally true of the Assembly. The same electorate must have faith in the Assembly's ability to act as a check and balance on the mayor, particularly when he has to all intents a divine power and responsibility—one man alone.
	With its current inadequate powers, the Assembly cannot effectively hold the mayor to account. Even the most cursory glance at the Bill reveals that its proposed new powers do not come close to matching those granted to the mayor. The intention to give the mayor strategic powers over housing and planning has already caused understandable concern to the boroughs, which consider that any powers devolved from the Government should be passed to them. Housing decisions should be taken where there is the greatest understanding of local needs. Many councils are already exceeding their housing targets, and there is evidence that most boroughs are responding well to overall policy. It is well known that the mayor favours tower blocks, for example, to resolve housing issues, and that many boroughs do not. So, even with that small issue there is potential for considerable disagreement. I note what the Minister has said tonight about the fact that the boroughs would have to conform to the mayor's housing strategy, but I think that we will want to delve more deeply into what that means and what the inference in that is.
	It would be a matter of serious concern if the mayor controlled both the regional housing pot and overall housing strategy. It could mean that some boroughs could benefit unfairly over others with similar housing difficulties. Boroughs could struggle to deliver local strategies if the mayor's spending priorities change or he simply does not make adequate resources available. What safeguards will the Government put forward to see that the mayor's spending recommendations adequately provide for boroughs' strategic responsibilities? What opportunity will there be for boroughs to appeal if given insufficient funding?
	The Bill will introduce an enhanced strategic role for the mayor in planning matters. We strongly echo the observations of Nick Raynsford in another place. I think his words must have been listened to, judging by what the Minister said today. But we will have to find out and define what the word "strategic" means. Even though the Minister has indicated today that many of the fears that have come about from this change of planning role may indeed not be so dreadful because it may turn back on itself. We need to discuss that matter in detail. Therefore I am not welcoming it with open arms until we have had a chance to talk it through in Committee.
	We need to understand what the extent of the mayor's remit will now be. Clearly an automatic size threshold is inappropriate. I think that the Minister has now recognised that. The legislation, as drafted, would allow the mayor to intervene in many more instances than is currently the case and to use his power in relation to applications that could be dealt with more appropriately and competently by local authorities.
	The Minister referred to the thresholds. This is one of the areas where the City of London in particular has strong concerns. I know that at least one of my noble friends will want to speak later on about that. We will certainly be seeking to ensure that the Government do not give any more powers to the mayor to intervene with planning applications, other than under the most limited circumstances; that if he has to make decisions he makes them transparently, and, perhaps more in line with the procedures which have to be adopted by local planning committees than the Minister has indicated—although I welcome her recognition that transparency over planning decisions has not been very apparent over the past few years, even where he was just turning them down. If he is going to make more decisions they must be made in public and in a way that they can be affected or challenged.
	Clause 33 of the Bill determines the fate of Section 106 payments. The Minister did not refer to those today. They will be affected by any development that the mayor has called in or has any role in granting. The provision adds only further incentive for the mayor to take over planning cases. We are concerned that the clause will allow and encourage the mayor to siphon off money from planning applications to use for his own purposes. Very often, developments, particularly those on a large scale, are acceptable to the local community only in return for investment of more practical benefit. It is therefore completely inappropriate that the mayor should be able to take Section 106 funds and use them for projects of his own choosing, and potentially he could be using them in a completely different part of London from where the money was derived.
	Increased interference from these expanded planning powers, if they stay expanded and we do not manage to get them changed, could have further unwelcome side effects. Already the mayor has been involved in more than 1,500 applications across London. Many are fairly minor. It is not surprising that this system is less efficient than boroughs reviewing their own applications. The Government seem to favour a faster process but in fact the boroughs work faster than the mayor on many occasions.
	There is also a real possibility that under the provisions of the Bill developers might decide to tailor their new developments towards the mayor, especially if they anticipate local or resident antipathy and particularly with any larger proposals. In fact, there is a danger that if referrals to the mayor become commonplace, developers will have to pay very little regard indeed to local opposition. That is something we really will need to tease out.
	The Minister referred to waste. While I know that there are no proposals in the Bill for a strategic waste authority, amendments were moved in the Commons to set up a strategic authority. We would resist any proposals if they were to be brought forward in this House and we would fully support the Government in this regard. I understand they are still opposed to such strategic waste authorities. An overarching scheme would mitigate against the current adequate arrangements for the collection of waste and its disposal. Most boroughs are already seeing an improvement in their recycling rates. There is little to suggest that that will not continue, or that a single authority would help that situation. What is certain is that the establishment of an overarching authority would lead to further costs to the taxpayer. We would urge the Government to hold their ground in opposition to this proposal if it comes before this House.
	More positively, there are other parts of the Bill that we broadly welcome; for example, Part 4 which deals with health. We agree that it is appropriate for the mayor to prepare a strategy to reduce the city's health inequalities and that the regional director for public health should act as health adviser and be subject to summons in public.
	We will look carefully at the proposals on climate change and the powers that will be given to the mayor. I am bound to say that London seems a very little place in the whole of the world to have its own climate policy, but I suppose if it extends further than pricing 4X4s out of London, it may have some effect.
	In truth, however, more of this Bill disappoints than brings hope. It is a missed opportunity to bring the mayor properly to account, to impose effective constraints on his powers, to review his current powers, and consequently to increase public confidence in the office. Despite what the Minister has said, the Bill will lead to the centralisation of many powers currently in the hands of the London boroughs. This is not in the interests of the residents of London; nor will it stimulate the more efficient provision of services. The office was created to perform a strategic role. It was not universally popular, and is still not universally popular, but it should remain only in a strategic role.
	The Bill gives further powers to the mayor under the guise of increasing accountability to Londoners in the provision of services that do little more than weaken the authorities that have the greatest local democratic legitimacy and a greater understanding of their area. It takes away powers from the very people whose political credibility depends entirely on the efficient running of those services. It also gives powers to the mayor, over whom there are still inadequate processes for holding to account, between elections.
	Despite the Minister's reassuring words today, we will seek, in the next weeks, to increase the transparency of the mayor's decision-making process, particularly in relation to planning powers, to give the Assembly a real role in overseeing and holding the mayor to account for his budget and strategies, and to limit the powers to intervene in both housing and planning matters. We want the Bill to define fully how the mayor must consult Londoners, especially given the charade of the recent extension of the congestion charge, which has left residents in my part of London wholly cynical about any consultation process. Are the Government, who were so recently censured in the Greenpeace case for inadequate consultation, satisfied that the mayor demonstrated proper regard for the opinion of Londoners? Here, at the end of my contribution, I declare my interest as an elected member of a local authority.
	We need to find ways of achieving real accountability to the London electorate; for example, by holding a recall referendum on the mayor's continuance in power, and by giving the Assembly a greater ability to amend the mayor's strategies. I have no doubt that noble Lords who follow will raise many other matters. My colleagues and I look forward to the debates to come.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for presenting the Bill and for updating the House on the Government's thinking on the issues. The constitution of the Greater London Authority, composed of the mayor and the London Assembly, is a specialist subject. I declare my interest as an Assembly Member. I am deputy chair of the Assembly, and Brian Coleman, my chairman, is keeping a close eye on me below the Bar. I speak partly as an Assembly Member, but very much as a member of the Liberal Democrats, in which capacity I make clear my support for devolution, of which this is another step, from central government to London's own strategic tier. The profile of the Greater London Authority—at any rate, the profile of the current mayor—is known to far more people than the anoraks. I will struggle today, and no doubt at later stages of the Bill, to retain the distinction between the office and the current office holder. One must do that. We are, however, also entitled to be informed by the experience of the past seven years. The constitutional arrangements should also be of interest to more people than the anoraks. The lessons on how a strong leader functions—I use the term "leader" semi-technically and refer to the office, not the incumbent—and what checks and balances are required will be considered in debates on another Bill very shortly.
	It was suggested to me that I should start my contribution today by saying, "As I was saying". It is certainly true that I was one of those who argued in 1999 against the strong mayoral model. So, too, did the then honourable Member for Brent East. Mayor Livingstone takes a different view. I believed then, and I believe now, that the council-leader model is a healthy one. As a close observer, I am interested to note that, as the GLA has continued to develop, many members of the mayor's own political group who were on the Assembly have been appointed by him to an executive or quasi-executive role. There are lessons to be learnt about how that is sometimes required.
	I accept that the Bill does not change the executive/scrutiny split. I am an enthusiast for good scrutiny; it can be very powerful, although too often, as I have learnt, it is dependent on the media, who inevitably by nature tend to reduce much of what the scrutiny arm does to the lowest common denominator. During the Bill's passage, we on these Benches will be asking questions about the balance of the relationship between the two arms of the GLA. Others may say that that amounts to seeking an executive role for the scrutiny body. That is not where I am coming from. The basis for that argument is very much public confusion about what the Assembly can do, a point that echoes something that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has said. My colleagues and I are frequently asked, "Why don't you stop him?". It is entirely counter-intuitive to the electorate that, having elected 25 Assembly Members on the same day as they elected the mayor, the Assembly Members do not have a right to say no.
	Scrutiny is not, and should not be, opposition, although the Executive may characterise it as such. It has not been unknown for the current Executive to reveal in a press release that the scrutiny arm opposes their proposals even before we have been able to ask questions, which is substantially our function. In brief, a check is needed as well as a balance. We welcome the Bill's strengthening of the Assembly's position and the Government's recognition of the dangers inherent in the Executive setting the budget for the scrutiny arm. I acknowledge that the current mayor has been generous in this regard. The Bill has several pages of formulae for the scrutiny budget, which are only a little less complicated than a Fair Isle knitting pattern. However, I put to the Government the Assembly's view that, in giving it the power to increase its own budget up to a ceiling, the mayor should be precluded from reducing it to below a floor related to his own budget. Most importantly—this would be consistent with every other institution I can think of—the Assembly budget should be decided by a simple majority of its own members. If a mayor needs to persuade only one-third of the Assembly to oppose the majority of the Assembly, he will have a completely inappropriate power.
	I talk of the scrutiny budget, but that is a tiny part of the whole. The current budget of the whole GLA group—the police and fire services, transport and the London Development Agency, as well as the Greater London Authority itself—is now knocking £11 billion. The mayor sets the whole of that. The precept is the most discussed part of the budget, but it all comes from the taxpayer in some form and from the fare payer, so no wonder the "council tax payer come national taxpayer come fare payer come Londoner" finds it difficult to understand that the Assembly can block the mayor's budget by only a two-thirds majority. To put it another way, the mayor needs to command only one-third of the Assembly to support his budget.
	In the context of power being best exercised at the lowest appropriate level, we on these Benches welcome most of the extensions of mayoral powers. No doubt we will debate how far the detail of any strategy should bind others, although any mayor should regard his greatest power as being how far he can influence people. Perhaps we will also debate whether the Assembly can amend a budget. It has long been a view in some academic circles that this is where a two-thirds majority in the Assembly might be better applied.
	On the extension of powers, my noble friends will deal with climate change and energy, and the continuing role of the Government Office for London, which, as is well known, has grown since 1999. On housing, I will confine myself simply to saying that broadly we support the Government's proposals. I know that there will be comments on the mayor's bid to run a single waste authority, which for good reasons signally failed to gather much support in the Commons, and on planning what constitutes a strategic application, in which the mayor should have a role and what that role should be.
	Many noble Lords will have received a briefing from Mr Livingstone in which he says:
	"Proposed changes to planning will lead to a better balance between strategic and local planning considerations in London, and will significantly reduce the current dependence on a time-consuming appeals system".
	I find it hard not to read this as meaning that the current mayor believes that he would be more likely than the boroughs to get it right—whatever that is—and that his taking over decisions would mean more consents.
	Whether or not the mayor is given additional planning powers, as has been said, it is important that his powers are exercised in an open and transparent manner. Who is consulted and how representations are heard are hugely important matters to developers and affected communities. A single person determining an application needs to be particularly energetic to ensure confidence. The procedure here is not a matter of mere bureaucracy. Communities need reassurance that they really have a stakeholder role and that it is not a meaningless phrase that the Section 106 arrangements should essentially be local arrangements.
	We talk of mayoral interventions. What we cannot know—I think that the noble Baroness alluded to this—is how far applicants anticipate encountering problems with the mayor and temper their applications accordingly before even submitting them. I very much welcome the Minister's comments on this issue. I may not welcome them quite enough, but they are significant, and I thank her for that.
	As the Minister says, London is certainly shaping up to be the capital of the 21st century, but the GLA is still a work in progress. There is much that is good about its work so far. At this stage, it is inevitable that we, as always, look at what concerns us, and how we as Londoners have experienced that work. I will not take your Lordships' time today to address every aspect of this largely welcome Bill. I am sure that the bumpiest ride will be with regard to the various planning clauses, on which concerns were so great that they were the basis for opposition in the Commons at Third Reading and have clearly led to much consideration behind the scenes since then. I suspect that the other bumpy ride will be over any changes to the budget process.
	I look forward to examining how the rest of the Bill will operate and what other changes to the Greater London Authority might help it operate more effectively and in a manner that Londoners would support. In other words, I look forward very much to scrutinising this Bill and in this House, if not always in City Hall, dealing with issues on the basis of a simple majority.

Baroness Valentine: My Lords, I relish the opportunity to speak about governance of the capital, a recurring theme in the symphony of London over the past quarter-century. As far back as the early 1990s, the business community identified the need for an executive mayor for the capital. London First, the business body of which I am chief executive, lobbied hard for London devolution. They say, "Be careful what you wish for".
	Prior to 2000, the UK's premier city had no strategy for managing its own success, no long-term investment plan and no political leadership. There was no policy for deciding whether or how to encourage economic growth following big bang and no plan to cater for the explosive increase in transport demand. There was not absolute support for every detail in the original Greater London Authority Act, nor has there been absolute support for every policy or flight of fancy of the current mayor since 2000.
	However, at least if we do not like what is happening in our city, we know who to call. London's economy has strengthened: we have seen off the challenge from Paris or Frankfurt and we now rival New York for pre-eminence in financial services. But London's complexion is far from flawless. Our transport system is bursting at the seams, we have the lowest employment levels in the country and around a fifth of London adults would qualify for special help in reading and writing were they to start secondary school today. An expected 1 million more people will live in London in the next 20 years, which is like everyone in Birmingham packing their bags and moving to the capital. Housing supply is not keeping up. Demand outstripping supply forces prices up, which takes even so-called affordable homes beyond the means of those on average incomes.
	These are serious challenges and we need to know that someone, armed with the necessary authority and funding, has the responsibility for tackling them. In this regard, I count the Greater London Authority as at least a qualified success. Without the powers bestowed on the GLA we would not have a strategic London plan, a flagship transport authority with a five-year investment programme or the introduction of the congestion charge in central London; neither would we have the 2012 Olympic Games or an increase of 10,000 in police and community support officers.
	I am pleased, therefore, that we are debating an extension of these powers. In the animated Wallace and Gromit film "The Wrong Trousers" the focus was on the trousers not on the wearer. For today's debate we must separate the personality, Mr Livingstone, from the trousers, which may be difficult for some of those on my right and, indeed, for some on my left, given that the office of mayor has largely been shaped by the current incumbent.
	In fairness, his achievements, style and policies this time around have made life under Ken less scary. I and others feel more comfortable about the extension of mayoral powers, so long as they do not extend to foreign policy. If Ken is listening: South America is an interesting continent—I have been there myself—but there are plenty of challenges to occupy us in London without trying to address those in Caracas.
	Joking aside, it is entirely appropriate for the Government to assess London's government structures and entirely rational to take devolution another step forward. Already the Further Education and Training Bill has confirmed that responsibility for skills training will pass to a capital-specific body, the London Skills and Employment Board. Stronger powers for the mayor need to be balanced by effective scrutiny by the Assembly. I support a strong executive mayor, even when he pursues what I regard as misguided policies, such as the western extension of the congestion zone and the west London tram. But the obligation placed on the mayor in this Bill to explain why he has rejected Assembly recommendations is a welcome measure that should increase the debate and transparency around decision-making without slowing things down.
	The new GLA Bill clears up anomalies in the day-to-day operation of the original Act. Importantly, by extending planning and housing powers, the mayor can deliver the strategic plans formulated over the past six-and-a-half years to address London's growing demand for commercial and residential property. It moves the mayor from back-seat commentator to front-seat co-driver.
	One helpful aspect of the GLA has been its intelligence function. The improved forecasting of London's demographic and economic changes has provided the backdrop for the London plan, which sets out London's planning, economic, environmental and transport policies a decade or so ahead. That is important for London and for the UK as a whole. The latest forecasts show that over the next 20 years the population is set to increase by 1 million, with up to 900,000 extra jobs. It represents a huge challenge to the planning system to build enough homes, shops, offices and infrastructure to support this growth.
	The competition is moving fast; Asia is moving fast. In the medium term, it is the greatest threat to London's success. We need to learn to embrace change. In Shanghai, plans today are skyscrapers tomorrow. I do not advocate such an undemocratic, command-economy approach, but our processes should not sit at the opposite end of this spectrum. We cannot afford to construct heated arguments while others construct air-conditioned buildings.
	It is not enough for the London Plan to set out where development should take place; it has to be translated into approval of actual development proposals. When the GLA was a babe in arms, the Government were nervous of giving the mayor a positive power to approve planning applications. They did not want to recreate the turf wars which characterised the relationship between the boroughs and the GLC, so they settled for a negative power for the mayor to direct refusal of applications for major schemes. This power has caused surprisingly little friction, a tribute to the professionalism of planning teams in both the GLA and most London boroughs. In the main, the power has been used to negotiate revisions to proposals rather than to direct refusals. Nevertheless it is right to be cautious about transferring power from the boroughs. The Bill and the process enshrined in the draft Mayor of London order represent the outcome of months of intense discussion between the major players involved in London's planning processes. There is wide agreement that the balance is now about right. The proposed new powers will apply to only a very few cases. The boroughs will still consider applications, consult the local community and reach a view on them, but it is right that in exceptional cases the mayor should be able to ensure that proposals of London-wide importance are considered in the interests of London as a whole rather than on the basis of purely local concerns.
	London needs to increase its housing supply to accommodate an increasing population and provide homes that people working in the capital can afford. This depends primarily on improving the operation of the planning system, including improving the effectiveness of borough planning departments in securing appropriate development. All housing is needed. Simple market forces mean that a greater supply delivers greater affordability overall, and the mayor should have a role in ensuring that London has the housing supply it needs.
	There has been much debate behind the scenes about whether, if a borough is already fulfilling its housing targets or where only one borough is affected, the mayor should not have the power to intervene. This would overcomplicate the test for whether the mayor can take over an application, achieving nothing more than delay and money for lawyers. The test is already defined as being about strategic importance and significant impact. Adding more dimensions and complications to would be counterproductive and smacks of a failure to embrace the fundamental concept. But I recognise that this is a new system and I would welcome a commitment from the Government to review it after a couple of years of operation.
	Of course there must be proper consultation with those affected, and their concerns must be taken into account. The new process must be transparent but equally there is a high price to pay for a system which makes it easier to hold up development than to approve it: runaway house prices as supply fails to match demand and the highest office rents in the world. Let us be clear: when London fails to win corporate headquarters they go not to Manchester or Birmingham but elsewhere in the world.
	Other measures beyond planning legislation are needed to ensure that development keeps pace with demand. Since the introduction of the uniform business rate in 1990, local authorities gain no financial benefit from new commercial development. I welcome the proposal from Sir Michael Lyons that local authorities should be able to keep more of the rate income from new development and use it to provide the investment needed for successful regeneration. It is important that local authorities and developers in London learn to work better together to achieve the huge development required to support its growth. This Lyons proposal would better align interests and is a step in the right direction. But Lyons's recommendations will achieve nothing if they gather dust on the shelf, and I look forward to government action to implement them.
	In summary, I treasure a vision of a UK proud of London and a London that recognises its responsibilities towards the rest of the UK. The capital plays a unique role in the UK economy and its challenges are unique. The Government took a bold step—some would say a gamble—when they created a unique form of government for the capital. Very few would argue that, all things considered, the gamble has not paid off. Re-evaluating the structures after seven years is a sensible move, and incremental devolution has proved successful. Arguably, the original Act bit off only as much as it could chew. To continue the analogy, there is now an appetite for greater devolution. London should have the ability to tackle its own challenges.
	I hope, therefore, that this is only the second and not the last GLA Bill, and that in the near future we will have another opportunity to review progress and take yet another step towards truly devolved London government. Just to give several years' warning of what I will be looking for in that next phase: first, more levers to tackle unemployment, and, secondly, more fiscal autonomy for London to determine its own spending priorities.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: My Lords, I am sure strong views will be expressed on a number of aspects of the Bill, but I should like to concentrate my remarks on the housing and planning proposals. I should begin by declaring an interest. I am a member of the board of Circle Anglia, which is a combined group of housing associations across London and the south east, and I chair Circle 33, which is one of the largest registered social landlords in that group. Together we have 30,000 properties and we are likely to double that figure in the next three years. We are experiencing phenomenal growth through a combination of local authority stock transfer, merger with smaller registered social landlords and Housing Corporation funding for new build and regeneration. We are a large housing association, but certainly not the largest in London.
	The reason I say this is to illustrate the changing shape of social housing provision in London. The old model of social housing purely being provided by local authorities is breaking down. There is now an increasing occurrence of affordable housing for rent, shared ownership or purchase being provided by large housing associations whose organisation and management often overrides local authority boundaries and accountability. In London we now have large housing associations using economies of scale to maximise the available stock of good quality housing for current and future tenants. They also have more freedom to innovate. That is why I am pleased to report that my housing association is leading a consortium which hopes to tackle the scandalous decline in MoD accommodation in return for access to land to build more affordable homes. I hope that noble Lords welcome experiments like that. And although it is a subject of continuing controversy, housing associations can currently access significant funding from the Housing Corporation to improve and increase the housing stock, which is not currently available to local authorities.
	This broader mix of housing providers can bring benefits, but it is also in danger of leaving a democratic vacuum. It is an issue that housing associations are trying to address through increased tenant participation at the local level, and we are working hard to find new ways of involving tenants in shaping their services. Clearly these initiatives can play an important role in supplementing the continuing crucial role of local authorities in responding to local housing needs. However, the scale of the housing challenge that we face across London needs a broader democratic mandate. That is why I welcome the new powers in the Bill to enable the mayor to set a London-wide housing strategy based on a thorough assessment of housing need across the city, with practical powers to specify the numbers, type and locations of houses to be built.
	It is impossible to overestimate the scale of the problem the mayor will inherit, which will need more than mere number-crunching to transform the housing crisis in the city. It has already been estimated that nearly 1 million extra people will move to London in the next 10 years. That is exacerbated by the year-on-year rise in single households, which put extra pressure on the existing stock. Meanwhile, we already have 62,000 families living in unsuitable temporary accommodation, and Shelter estimates that one in seven children is growing up in substandard or overcrowded accommodation. This is blighting the lives of a large number of our future generation, for whom poor housing also leads to poor health and to poor educational achievement.
	To be fair, the Government have been bold in providing additional funding for housing on an unprecedented scale, but they will need to be bolder still. While they remain on course to meet the decent homes target for all existing social housing by 2010, Shelter has estimated that an additional 20,000 new units of social housing a year nationally need to be built to meet the growing housing need. The majority of those units will be concentrated in the south-east. I hope the Chancellor will address this issue in the Comprehensive Spending Review. He should do so with renewed confidence that the mayor and the GLA will be empowered to use any additional resources allocated to London effectively and efficiently.
	I referred to the need for the Government to be bold, but there is an even bigger obligation in this Act for the Mayor and the GLA to be bold and imaginative in addressing our housing challenge. In particular they need to galvanise the wasted resources in the private sector. We already know the extra pressures caused by the accumulation of land banks for speculative gain. While the planning-gain legislation is a useful weapon, the Mayor will need a clear strategy to free up pockets of brownfield land for development. At the same time, we know we have an estimated 100,000 empty residential properties already in London. Again, some of those have been purchased purely for speculative gain, rather than for use—as I heard it described on the radio yesterday, buy-to-sit rather than buy-to-let. The new powers in the Housing Act could tackle those empty properties, but the Act will need to be imposed more systematically to make a real difference.
	Lastly, the Mayor has the opportunity to be innovative in accessing the empty space in commercial premises and above shops, which could be converted into residential accommodation and help regenerate neighbourhoods. I do not pretend that these interventions will be easy, but we need to utilise every appropriate space within the confines of London before we can justify expansion. We need to maintain a high-level dialogue with the people of London to give a democratic mandate to the use of that space.
	There is one further reason why, for me, the new powers for the Mayor are so important. Last week saw the publication of the report by John Hills into the future of social housing in England. He identified a crucial challenge: currently, more than half of those of working age living in social housing are without paid work. That is twice the national rate, and is not merely a feature of the disadvantage that may have qualified them for social housing in the first place. He identifies a range of possible explanations for that, such as a fear of losing benefits, the possibility of the location of social housing being in the wrong place to access work, the constraints on mobility and the downward impact of esteem in some neighbourhoods. He makes a strong thesis of a link between social housing and a lack of economic activity.
	Some of his solutions can only be achieved by Government at a national level, but others could easily be achieved by a strategic London-wide authority that already has responsibility for delivering economic success across the capital. The new housing powers complement the existing economic powers, which can deliver better economic outcomes for those in social housing. For example, we could be talking about generating more local employment at a neighbourhood level, or about freeing up the mobility scheme to allow tenants to transfer jobs more easily for job-related reasons. We could be providing more integrated housing and employment support for young people, such as the foyer schemes that have been so successful. I hope the Mayor will champion innovation such as this, and will help to achieve our aspiration of thriving mixed economies and mixed communities across London.
	Getting our housing strategy right remains a big challenge, and the Government have to play a part. There will need to be different solutions for different parts of the country. For us here in London, though, the best solutions lie on the one hand in improving community engagement, and on the other hand in an authority able to take a broad view of the housing needs of Londoners and deliver the extra homes we need. The Bill delivers that framework, and I am confident that the Mayor will use his powers wisely. I look forward to the continuing debate on the details of the Bill in the coming weeks.

Lord Sheikh: My Lords, serious questions need to be raised concerning the contents of the Bill. My main concerns centre on the crucial issues of housing, planning, waste and the role of the Greater London Authority under the new system.
	On the issue of housing, the responsibilities of the existing London Housing Board will transfer to the Mayor, and he will be responsible for publishing a London housing strategy and housing investment plan. The Mayor will have responsibility for addressing the demand for affordable housing in the capital. With regard to planning, the Mayor will have the power not only to direct changes for local borough plans but also to privatise particular projects he feels are of most benefit to meet the requirements of his London plan. The Bill will also create a new London-wide waste management programme, apparently aimed at improving efficiency in the boroughs and increasing recycling throughout London. We will also see the creation of a London waste and recycling fund.
	These changes will concentrate too much power in the hands of the Mayor, and one of my main criticisms of the Bill is that the large increase in powers to the mayoral office is not matched by equal increases in accountability. That is not fair, and it is unacceptable.
	It may be argued that there can be benefits from considering local issues within the wider perspective of London as a whole. However, there is a real danger that local and community issues will be overlooked in favour of more strategic overall plans, which will result in local people feeling ostracised from the decision-making process. A survey published in September 2006 by London Councils provided evidence to suggest that Londoners themselves have much more faith in their local councils over matters such as housing and planning, and are not happy with increased powers for the Mayor.
	I live in the London Borough of Croydon and my company has its head office in Bromley. Both those local councils are well managed and efficient. Therefore, I do not see any need for the decision-making process regarding housing and planning to be moved from our elected local councillors to the Greater London Authority. I may add that under the new system the role of the Assembly will give it the authority to set its own budget, and it will publish an annual report on its workings. Alongside this, the Assembly will hold hearings to validate the mayor's choices for key appointments. These proposals need further examination and reconsideration.
	The explanations and definitions in the Bill are also poor. The word "strategic" in relation to the mayor's powers over planning is an example. There is little explanation of how the Government determine "strategic"—thus, the emphasis lies completely with the mayor in how this should be defined and played out in practice. There is a distinct lack of transparency built into the Bill. Instead of definite requirements for planning written into the Bill, the onus is on the mayor to live up to his claims that there will be transparency in his dealings.
	Attempts to standardise services throughout the capital—for example, in waste management or housing—will undermine much of the progress made by certain boroughs in these fields in recent years. A "one size fits all" approach will stifle any innovative approach boroughs may have to the individual problems they face; it is not the way to increase standards overall. Instead, a considered and local approach with community consultation is much more likely to have the positive effects desired. Overall, the dramatic transfer of power to the mayoral office is not justified. It is felt that a body dominated by the mayor, run from City Hall, will not be responsive to local issues.
	I have very strong connections with the City of London and have a branch of my company in the Royal Exchange. The City Corporation feels that the current proposals are in danger of damaging the City's international competitiveness by making the whole process more complicated and less responsive. The financial organisations that make the City of London a successful international marketplace require a structure that works efficiently. The proposed added layer of bureaucracy will be a hindrance and not cost-effective.
	In my opinion, the Bill is not acceptable in its present form. Several appropriate amendments will be tabled for discussion in its later stages.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, 1,000 people in a firm in the City got a bonus of £1 million last Christmas. That sits pretty badly with the people who are badly housed or living in temporary accommodation.
	Therefore, it is welcome that the mayor together with the GLA want to increase housing provision for poor families in the capital. As I understand it, the mayor's target is 30,000 new homes per annum, which on the face of it seems quite modest. Of those, one-half should be affordable homes and 10,000 should be in the socially rented sector, the rest of affordable homes being for shared ownership. That, although those are modest figures, would I understand make an appreciable difference to helping poor people in London who are at the moment badly housed.
	Some of the boroughs are less interested in social housing than others, while some of them have an excellent record. For the sake of all Londoners—and even the most affluent boroughs have poor people living in them who are badly housed—it is right that there should be an overall strategy and ability to deliver housing for London. I believe that this Bill will enable the mayor with the new powers to do far more for the badly housed people of London.
	On planning, I welcome giving the mayor enhanced powers for what will be a small number of strategic planning decisions. Everything points to the fact that these will simply be decisions that are very significant and whose importance transcends the individual boroughs in which the sites are located. Provided that there is no bureaucracy of having to jump over two hurdles for planning permission and that there is proper transparency in the process of deciding on planning applications, that is probably a good thing. If it means that the mayor will have more influence on bringing forward land for affordable housing, that is so much the better.
	Of course, we all have our individual concerns, and I shall indulge myself in talking about one of them. There may be particular sites about which one might be anxious. In my former parliamentary constituency of Battersea, there is the whole future of Battersea power station to think about. This is not an occasion to debate this in detail, but it is an important site, and I sincerely hope that a proper use will be found for this iconic building under its new owners, possibly including the Government's proposed energy technologies institute. I understand that that has the full support of the mayor. I hope that the Minister will think about that one and see whether there is anything that can be done. Of course, the power station is much too large simply to house the energy technologies institute, but it could be a useful site for it and other uses would follow.
	I turn to what is probably the key question that bothers me—that of waste. It is a key environmental issue that presents enormous challenges to the country as a whole and to local authorities that have responsibilities. For government, there is the need to take action to reduce the total amount of waste produced. One only has to buy things in some stores to see how much waste there is in the packaging, material and so on. It is important that that should be reduced. Having got that down—and there is some way to go yet—the real challenges are to increase the amount of waste recycled and reduce the amount going into landfill, as there will soon not be enough landfill in southern England to accommodate the waste from Londoners.
	Bluntly, London is simply not doing well enough in dealing with waste. Some of the individual boroughs are; some are not. Let me give some figures. In 2005—the latest year for which I could get figures—London recycled 21 per cent of its household waste. This compares with 57 per cent in Hamburg, 43 per cent in Munich, 39 per cent in Milan and 39 per cent in Vienna. In North America, San Francisco recycled half its household waste and Seattle 58 per cent. These figures make London look as if it is not doing well enough. Other cities in the world may be doing worse than London but we ought to be doing better. We are conscious of the need to do something and understand what should be done but we are simply not doing it.
	The national target for the UK is 25 per cent so we have some way to go. But the situation is even worse: 22 out of London's 37 waste authorities, which may comprise individual boroughs or several boroughs acting together, failed to achieve their statutory household recycling targets for 2005-06. London boroughs and London waste authorities are among the lowest ranking of all English local authorities, and the majority have not met their statutory recycling targets. London is currently the worst performing English region for recycling: 22 out of the 37 waste authorities are in the bottom half in terms of performance and 18 are in the bottom quartile. Only one, Bexley, is in the upper quartile. That is a pretty poor record. Of the 15 London waste authorities that responded to a Government survey, only one was planning to meet its 2020 recycling target.
	About two-thirds of London's waste is buried in landfill and mostly exported to sites outside London; the latter is a fairly random process. London incinerates 18 per cent of its waste and this is set to double. London will then account for half of England's share of incineration while managing only 15 per cent of the country's municipal waste. That is not good enough.
	London is the only major metropolitan region where waste disposal is not managed and co-ordinated at city level. So far as I have discovered, pretty well every major metropolitan region in the world has a co-ordinated overall strategy for waste disposal. Of course, the boroughs will still have to collect the waste but essentially we need a waste disposal strategy for the whole of London. Individual boroughs have lobbied against that. They want to keep things as they are and say that they can do better. However, I am not sure that they have demonstrated that up to now. The Bill is weak in this respect. It is going in the right direction but it could be strengthened. A vast incinerator is proposed in Belvedere for west London authorities to send their waste to. People in Belvedere do not want an incinerator there and I understand that the Mayor of London does not see that as the best way forward. That is just a one-off example.
	What is the answer? It is a single waste disposal authority, which would achieve the right balance between local collection and strategic processing and disposal. A strategic waste disposal authority should be a body of the GLA clearly accountable to the Mayor. At present accountability for waste disposal is unclear and some of the joint waste disposal authorities are hardly accountable; they operate much more like quangos. By moving this function under the Mayor we would improve accountability, not lessen it. We would also achieve better co-ordination and promote proper investment in the recycling facilities that are necessary to improve London's record in that regard.
	Such an authority would also improve the transport of waste around London. Transport for London estimates that within London alone waste travels 44 million kilometres a year, accounts for 10 per cent of all freight movements in London and represents 290,000 tonnes of CO2—this at a time when we are supposed to be more environmentally conscious. If we had a strategic waste disposal authority for London, the transport of waste in London could be lessened. It cannot be abolished altogether and reduced to nothing, but it could certainly be lessened from the present figure, where individual waste authorities make their own decisions, search for sites where they can dispose of waste or occasionally recycle it. We can do better. Having thought hard about the counter suggestions from the London boroughs, I believe sincerely that a properly accountable strategic waste disposal authority for London under the Mayor is the right way forward. I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration as we proceed with the next stages of the Bill.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Second Reading debate. Unlike some of my noble friends, I have no experience of local government and my interest arises solely from the fact that I was born in London and have lived here all my life. My interest, therefore, is as someone who has always enjoyed living in London. I have watched it change over the years. I remember the years after the war when there was an extreme housing shortage caused by the bombing. We had rent controls at that time. They were later dispensed with but, had they not existed, poorer people simply could not have afforded anywhere to live.
	London has changed enormously since those days. It is now very diverse, and in many ways—I am very glad to say—is an extremely tolerant city. As a number of speakers said, there has been a large increase in population. People are attracted to London and want to live here. The population is expected to grow still further—by more than 800,000 in the next decade.
	The Bill seeks to devolve more powers from Whitehall to the mayor and to London. This should be generally welcomed. The increased population has resulted in certain pressures on the infrastructure that need a London-wide solution. One of these problems is housing. Some speakers, including my noble friend Lord Dubs, dealt with that in detail. London has a very urgent need for more housing, with more than 62,000 people living in temporary accommodation and more than 150,000 overcrowded households.
	As we know, home ownership is unaffordable for many Londoners and getting on to the so-called housing ladder is an absolute nightmare for many younger people. The provision of social housing has been neglected under successive Governments. As we heard, the Bill requires the mayor to set out his assessment of housing need in the capital as the basis for a London-wide strategy. However, as I understand it, none of the statutory housing powers and duties that currently rest with local authorities is being transferred to the mayor. The provision of affordable housing cannot simply be left to the market. A London housing strategy would give housing in the capital a new focus and priority. This is urgent and essential. The workforce that London needs has a right to be housed at a decent level and at affordable rents.
	I was born and raised on a very good LCC housing estate in south-east London. I very much regret that local councils no longer provide social housing as they used to do. Housing associations are not taking up the role that local councils once fulfilled, although, as we heard from one of my noble friends, they do a reasonable job. We have to expect that from the mayor, who will have these powers, which I know he welcomes. I had the opportunity to talk to him at a function last night and found that he was enthusiastic about the possibility of utilising powers allowed to him under the Bill, particularly on housing.
	The Bill also devolves responsibilities from Whitehall to London, giving the mayor a stronger statutory role on health inequalities in the capital. There seem to be inequalities in health provision between different geographical areas and particularly in population groups. Minority-ethnic groups are apparently at the greatest risk of heart disease and stroke in areas of south-east and north-east London. This is another issue where a London-wide strategy might be useful. I know that the mayor is anxious to do something about that. He already has a role in public health.
	The Bill also supports and expands the London Assembly's scrutiny powers, which I am sure will be welcome. There are powers in relation to planning applications. I do not know very much about that, but I understand that there has been a draft Mayor of London order defining the scope of the powers. I understand that the Assembly is very anxious to ensure that these powers are exercised openly and transparently. I am sure that some of this will emerge in Committee.
	One aspect of the Bill which has aroused some contention, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, is waste management. The mayor favours the creation of a single waste-disposal authority responsible for processing and disposing of waste, with boroughs responsible for collection services. The mayor's office claims that this approach secures the most appropriate balance between keeping local that which is best done locally—collection—and managing the city-wide aspects of strategic concern; that is, processing and disposal. The SWDA that is recommended would be a functional body of the Greater London Authority, accountable to the mayor and on a similar footing to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, one of the GLA's four functional bodies, which I understand is regarded by everybody as very competent and worthwhile. I have received a detailed briefing from the mayor's office in favour of the establishment of the SWDA, much of which has already been reported to us this evening by my noble friend Lord Dubs, who fully explained exactly what is involved in an SWDA. A very strong case is being made for the establishment of such a facility.
	I gather that the Government's view is that there is an urgent need for investment in new waste facilities in London to meet the challenge of EU targets. London councils, I believe, object to the establishment of an SWDA on grounds of cost, but the failure to meet EU targets could also involve substantial costs as well as a continuation of something not very different from the present system, which itself will eventually result in higher costs. I gather that the Government are proposing a London waste and recycling forum to bring together stakeholders in London and to co-ordinate activities. The mayor's view is that that is an inadequate response to London's need to manage its waste as a single city rather than as a multitude of independent and uncoordinated waste authorities. I also understand that the Assembly is not in favour of an SWDA but it favours a city-wide water strategy. No doubt we will be able to discuss those and other matters in Committee. Meanwhile, I welcome the Bill and its devolution of authority in London.

Lord Warner: My Lords, as a long-standing and committed Londoner, I am glad to have the chance to speak on this Bill, given its aim to strengthen devolved powers in London. The main focus of my remarks will be the health provisions at Clauses 21 to 24. However, I should first declare an interest as the recently appointed part-time chairman of the new provider agency that NHS London has established. I should make clear to the House that the recent, slightly unsavoury, remarks by Front Bench spokesman for health in the other place about that appointment have been shown to be quite unjustified after an investigation by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health and by the Cabinet Office.
	As a dyed-in-the-wool Londoner, I am only too well aware of the health challenges it faces. These are brought out very well in a document published earlier this month, The Case for Change, which represents the first stage of a review by Professor Sir Ara Darzi. It reveals that although on some health indicators such as coronary heart disease London performs reasonably well, it has major challenges in other areas. For example, smoking is more prevalent in London than is the case nationally, London has higher rates of childhood obesity and it faces specific health challenges, such as HIV, drug abuse and mental health problems. London has 57 per cent of England's cases of HIV. One in four adult drug users lives in London and a million Londoners have had mental health problems. The shortage of affordable and good quality housing in London can also contribute to health problems among its population.
	Health inequalities in London, both in terms of outcomes and service access, are significant. Just eight stops on the Jubilee Line take you from Westminster to Canning Town, where average life expectancy is seven years lower. Raising life expectancy for the bottom half of London boroughs to the current London average, which is pretty much near the national average, would save the lives of 1,300 Londoners every year. Infant mortality in Haringey is three times that in Richmond.
	Professor Ara Darzi sets out a succinct and compelling case for change that would help to tackle some of those entrenched inequalities. His document shows that providing more acute hospitals is not the answer. London already has a relatively high number of those hospitals, compared with most parts of the country. What is needed is more concentrated specialist care and better use of our workforce and buildings. However, overwhelmingly what is needed in London is a much stronger base of community and primary care services and a much greater evenness in public health polices and services across the capital.
	That is why it is timely for the Government to include in the Bill the provisions on health at Clauses 21 to 24, which provide for a health adviser and deputy health advisers to the GLA and a reduction in health inequalities. It is right that the GLA and the mayor have more responsibilities in this area, but it is important that they exercise them in a co-ordinated way with general public health policies and with NHS London, the body with strategic healthcare responsibilities in London. For too long, local government, particularly in relation to housing, has been something of a poor relation in tackling London's health agenda. Some of that is down to the failure of the NHS to recognise the role that local government could play, together with the absence of a strong strategic presence for tackling health inequalities. The Bill provides a new opportunity for the GLA, the mayor and NHS London to work together for the benefit of Londoners' health. The second and final instalment of Professor Ara Darzi's review will appear in a few months' time and will provide an invaluable analytical underpinning for aiding that kind of joint working.
	Before I sit down, I want to say a few words about waste management. There is a strong link between waste reduction and management and health and well-being. Minimising the quantity of waste and improving its collection and disposal reduces the risk of disease and injury from waste. Less money spent on waste disposal means more money for other public services. The NHS, too, has to play its part constructively, particularly in terms of clinical waste disposal and in achieving more sustainable behaviour by its suppliers. It is a big consumer of goods and services from other suppliers. I hope that the new SHA, NHS London, will play a full and constructive part in taking forward this agenda, especially in the area of clinical waste and in getting suppliers to behave in a sustainable way, drawing on the expertise of bodies such as the Environment Agency.
	Finally, I want to say a few words on the wider issue of waste management, speaking as a Londoner living in a borough—Southwark—which is in the dubious position of being 381st out of 393 English authorities in terms of recycling rates and which failed to meet its recycling target for 2005-06. I note in passing that the two boroughs that will be centre stage in the Olympics—Newham and Tower Hamlets—sit firmly at numbers 392 and 393. I recognise, as we have heard this evening, that the mayor's proposal for a single waste management body did not find favour in the other place. However, in his briefing on the Bill, the mayor makes a respectable case for a more robust approach on waste management. As an experienced manager, I have to say that much of what he says makes a good deal of sense.
	I do not expect my noble friend to answer today but I should be grateful if she would write to me about the somewhat worrying figures that the mayor has put forward for the long-term fines that London faces for inadequate waste management. I should like to know a bit more about why the Government disagree with the mayor's analysis and figures and why they are convinced that leaving structures as they are will deliver the improvements in waste management that London needs. In particular, I should be very interested to know whether there has been a full and proper cost-benefit analysis of the different options available.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I want to say a few words about Part 7 of the Bill, which deals with planning. Before doing so, I should declare my interests. The first is that, along with other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am a joint president of what is now called London Councils but which used to be the Association of London Government. I am also a freeman of the City of London, and, last year, I moved with my wife back to live in London, where no doubt we will end our days—at least, I hope we will.
	Part 7 gives the mayor extended powers to intervene in planning decisions, as a number of noble Lords have already recognised. I have heard no arguments that come close to persuading me that the increased planning powers are necessary or that the existing powers in the original 1999 Bill are inadequate to ensure that the mayor has sufficient control and involvement in major strategic issues. The London Councils has made its view abundantly clear: it does not believe that these new powers are necessary or appropriate and I support its view on that. My noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned the words of Nick Raynsford who, after all, was the architect of the original Greater London Authority Bill and took it through another place. At the Report stage of this Bill, he said that the principles,
	"will break the fundamental principle, on which the GLA legislation was based, that the Mayor should have a strategic role, and should not have powers to trample all over the boroughs in matters subject to local decision".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/07; col. 858.]
	I hoped that someone of Mr Raynsford's experience and authority might be listened to. I am tempted to say that all these clauses should be dropped. However, realism suggests that that is not likely to happen—it might be a bridge too far. Even if I persuaded your Lordships that we should drop the clauses from the Bill, I would not anticipate that another place could be persuaded to accept that decision.
	In this House, we have to make some changes to ameliorate the effects of Part 7. At this late stage in the evening, I want to concentrate on one point: the power given to the mayor by Clause 31(2) that he, not the local planning authority—for example, the London boroughs or the City corporation—
	"may direct that he is to be the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the application".
	That applies, among other things, to any application which is "of potential strategic importance". Other noble Lords have already asked what is meant by "strategic" in this context. It is to be defined by order; that is to say by statutory instrument.
	I want to consider the effect of that on the City. The City of London has had an enviable reputation in managing its planning affairs with much sensitivity and much innovation and adventurousness. In my view, the City of London now represents some very fine infrastructure facilities which contribute to the wealth and prosperity of London. I do not need to go into the details of the importance of the City. It is now one of the important financial centres in the world, if not the most important. The impact of globalisation means that the City will have to work hard to maintain that pre-eminence. The City corporation, under the very able leadership of Michael Snyder, is fully seized of its vital role in creating and sustaining the infrastructure needed to support the financial services industry. An important part of that is to ensure the provision of really top-class buildings to attract and retain the firms that work in that industry. For that reason, the planning regime in London has, for many years, made different provision for the City from that applicable to the rest of London.
	Under the existing Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order, the powers of the mayor in relation to planning in the City are fairly limited; in effect, a power to direct a refusal of planning applications in certain defined circumstances. The most important criteria for that intervention by the mayor is the size of the building; that is to say, the height and floor space which is the subject of the planning application. The existing mayoral powers of intervention apply where a building is more than 75 metres high or where the total floor space is more than 30,000 square metres.
	In Committee in another place, the Government issued a new draft Mayor of London order, intended, if approved in due course, to replace the existing order. The draft order reflects the proposed enhanced powers of Part 7 of the Bill, particularly the mayor's power to direct that he is to be the planning authority for certain planning applications. The main point I wish to draw to the attention of the House is that, even now, seven years on, the order uses exactly the same criteria for these more extensive mayoral powers: the mayor can direct that he is the planning authority for any building over 75 metres high, or with a floor space over 30,000 square metres.
	The City authorities contend that those limits are far too low. I very much welcome the words of the Minister this evening, reflecting what was said in another place, that the Government are prepared to listen to that complaint and recognise that those limits should perhaps be changed. The City would like to see, not 75 metres, but 150 metres high and the floor space increased to at least 100,000 square metres—preferably 100,000 square metres of additional space. These figures are not reached arbitrarily, but are based on an analysis of the applications that have been referred to the mayor since 2000. More importantly, they reflect the Government's expressed intention, emphasised by the Minister this evening, that the mayor should intervene in only a small number of the most strategically important planning applications.
	To give the House an indication of what I am talking about, 75 metres high includes the Lloyd's building at 95 metres, the Stock Exchange at 100 metres and the Barbican towers, which reach 123 metres. Nobody could ever now contend that a planning application to put up a building like that could possibly be of strategic importance for the whole of London. That is why the City authorities argue that the limit must now be raised. Buildings over 150 metres include the "Gherkin", which everybody would recognise at 195 metres, the former NatWest Tower, which has been there a long time and is now called Tower 42, at 200 metres, and several others. In particular, there is what is known in the City as the "eastern cluster" of the new very high buildings: the Heron Tower at 238 metres, the "Cheese Grater" at 239 metres, and the new Bishopsgate Tower—not yet finished—will be over 300 metres. These are large buildings, but serve as an indication that if the mayor wanted to intervene on those kind of buildings, there would be very few of them.
	I shall put my question to the Minister and then sit down. She said that she will listen to views. This order will require amendment in any case; the Government have indicated that other matters are not satisfactory and will therefore be amended. May we have a revised draft order before the Bill goes into Committee? Is the Minister prepared to consider—I would not expect a decision this evening—those higher figures which the City proposes? To quote Mr Snyder:
	"We are in favour of a system that is genuinely strategic and delivers benefits to Londoners but the proposed powers are insufficiently targeted. The draft needs to include bigger thresholds for height and size and"—
	I have not mentioned this—
	"needs to drop its current catch-all provision".
	I would like to express that in somewhat blunter language of my own. The last thing the City wants is a flabby planning system which deters innovating developments or subjects the planning process to mayoral idiosyncrasies. I hope that the Minister can give me some satisfaction later this evening.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, as has been said before, "everything that can be said has been said but not by everybody", and I intend to make my uppennyworth. I begin by congratulating the Minister and her advisers. As has been said more than once, there has been a long period of consultation and an attempt seriously to take it on board. Seven years after the major step to bring back London-wide government, she and her colleagues have brought before us their best effort at what they believe will help to solve the problems. Of course they will not succeed in persuading everybody, but they deserve our congratulations on it, and I give them now.
	Those of us who have attended local government and housing debates are the repertory company. We perform from time to time to the best of our ability. But, as an old hand, it is very good to welcome newcomers to our assembly. I was delighted to listen first of all to the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and then to my noble friend Lady Jones, who each, from their distinctive personal experience—and that is what we need in this place—were able to excite me about the possibilities in this particular sphere.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is a friend—Lord Jenkin of Roding. I repeat that because I made a mistake in pronunciation once before. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, grit his death when I said "Jenkins", and I apologise once again. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I continue to have a great interest in what are now called the London councils. I am no longer as actively involved in local government as many of the speakers here tonight, but I was a councillor in the London borough of Enfield 45 or 46 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, reported with pride that he is a freeman of the City of London. In two weeks, I will have the great honour of being invited to accept the freedom of the London borough of Enfield.

Noble Lords: Here, here!

Lord Graham of Edmonton: More, more, my Lords. It is a great honour for someone who works in a voluntary capacity to be recognised in a community. The problem for any speaker in this debate is to try to reconcile the views of bodies with whom one has been associated or to whom one is sympathetic. I mentioned London councils and the London borough of Enfield. I was also the Member of Parliament for Edmonton for a number a years, and have been here for a long time. I certainly supported the recreation of the Greater London Authority. One can guess from the time that I mentioned that I was here before the GLC was formed; in other words, before the London County Council ceased to have its overall strategic responsibilities. I was here when the GLC was murdered in 1986 and mourned. I was here when London did not have the kind of body which the GLA grew into later.
	There is no doubt that the changes in London have been quite dramatic. I remember welcoming the Minister for London—a chap called Bob Mellish—when I was leader of the council in Enfield in 1965. He brought along Baroness Evelyn Dennington, the chairman of the housing committee on the GLC. They urged us to subscribe to the view that a strategy was needed for building housing in London to tackle the enormous problem of housing need. Bob Mellish gave us a challenge when he said, "We've estimated that this borough could build 1,000 units a year". At the time, we were building 500 or 600 units. I am pleased to say that, although we lost power in 1968, by 1970 we had produced 1,000 new units as a result of our planning. I make that point to show that, in housing, one needs power, drive and inspiration. Bob Mellish and Evelyn Dennington energised us and others.
	As a Member of Parliament—several of us on both sides of the Chamber have had the same experience—there is nothing more depressing than listening to people who are depressed and in serious difficulty, and when the solution is not to have better housing but simply to have housing to start with. More than once, I left my surgery and sat in my car and cried at the fact that I could not respond to what I knew was a human need. Marriages, jobs and children's education all depended on having a good place in which to live. I was therefore delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talk about the possibilities that are emerging. I am invited here to give a general view. You do not win them all; you win some, and you are grateful. I have seen Arthur Miller's "A View from the Bridge" more than once. Between the acts, an interlocutor explains that he is on the New York dockside. He tells people that if they are illegal immigrants, life does not treat them right, and that those who live on the dockside learn to settle for half. No one gets all that they want.
	There is a danger that the office and the personality of the mayor sometimes run into each other. I have had my ups and downs with Ken Livingstone over the years, but I believe that when the history of the past seven years is written, he will be seen to have done a good job. There are people who will never believe that he could do a good job, but I believe that he has, and he needs our support.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that Nick Raynsford does not want the changes in planning because he does not wish to see the mayor trampling over the London boroughs. As a defender of the London boroughs, neither would I. I believe that neither the whole House nor the London Assembly would stand for that. One must have a sense of proportion and sensitivity in these matters. Given the seven years bedding down of the GLA, we have reached a stage where we have a responsibility to give it a new breath of life in order for it to carry on what it is doing.
	The briefing from London First states:
	"London First supports greater devolution to the Mayor and strong strategic leadership".
	I settle for that. It is not one of the statutory bodies, but it has an important part to play. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, it has an understanding of what business expects from a London-wide authority.
	On waste disposal or a waste authority, the mayor has to recognise that there is a time when these things are seen by everyone to be the solution. Now is not that time because there is too much opposition. I believe that the Government have gone as far as they can to create a helpful framework. I will certainly look forward to taking part in the debates as far as I can. London government and the people of London deserve the very best, and nothing less.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with one major reservation, to which my noble friend Lady Thornton has already referred, I very much welcome this Bill. Many veterans of this debate will recall that I was the Minister who brought through the hefty GLA Bill in 1999. It was at the time the second-longest non-financial Bill that we had ever had: the longest Bill—the Government of India Bill—was never implemented. The Bill was also remarkable for the huge number of amendments which were brought to this House at relatively late stages. I would hope that we do not go through that same process on this Bill. I am glad to see that the Government concur with that.
	During those debates we had a lot of discussion about constitutional issues, which was quite bizarre because the Liberal Democrats wanted an assembly without a mayor and the Conservatives wanted a mayor without a directly-elected assembly. What scraped through therefore was an uneasy position, which has largely but not entirely worked. The tweaking in this Bill of the constitutional relationship between the mayor and the Assembly is needed and we will no doubt debate that later.
	In addition during those debates, there were suggestions from all sides of the House that more strategic powers should be put to the authority—whether it be the mayor or the Assembly— particularly for spatial development, environment and planning. I can tell noble Lords now that I had some sympathy with those arguments, although my colleagues in Government did not entirely, and there are two reasons for that.
	The good reason for approaching it with caution at that stage was that we were creating a new entity, something that had not been tried before. We were not recreating the old GLC and therefore we were right to be cautious. The bad reason was that it was already clear by that time who the leading candidates for mayor were going to be. There was some anxiety on the Labour Benches, although not for me, that the current mayor was going to run away with the Labour nomination—the reality proved to be slightly more complicated. The frontrunner on the Conservative Benches at the time was the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, who was also an active participant in these debates. All those anxieties probably prevented us going as far as we should in relation to some of the strategic responsibilities of the mayor. Nevertheless, as other noble Lords have said, we have seen that by and large the GLA has been a success, particularly in those areas which clearly require a strategic approach, such as transport. I therefore think it is time to revisit the strategic powers and that this Bill has probably got it right.
	I particularly welcome the commitment in relation to the climate change strategy. It is true that we may need to look at the wording, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but it is an opportunity for London to take the lead in the climate change strategy through the action plan the mayor produced the other week to give us the lead. I hope that London can lead the way, particularly in areas such as distributed energy which are so vital to solving our energy problems. Here I declare an interest as a member of the London Climate Change Agency and, of course, as part of the Environment Agency.
	I also welcome the planning powers, and I do not really accept the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on these. The original two-tier structure for planning powers was a bit too narrow and bureaucratic in the original Act. That does not mean I necessarily agree with the reported predilection of the mayor for extremely high buildings, but if we are to look at the thresholds again, the figures proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on behalf of the City are too high and that in many parts of London no very important strategic buildings would ever reach those thresholds. We therefore need to ensure that the mayor does have wider powers in relation to strategic planning issues.
	On housing, in 1999 I was not convinced by arguments that the GLA should have housing powers, but I am now. We do not want to make the GLA a housing authority, but the fact is that noble Lords will have heard me bewail before the problems of housing policy in London. All parts of the housing market in London—owner occupation, private rented and social housing—are dysfunctional. There is a severe shortage of housing at the affordable end in all of those markets and the city is crying out for a strategic approach. The failure of social housing, which reflects housing stretch and the pressure of population resulting in the atomisation of families and other stresses particularly affecting low income families, is a real problem. Yet the current targets for new developments to provide affordable housing are not being met in a lot of London boroughs. Some are very low, such as Wandsworth at only 12 per cent. There is also circumvention of the requirements even in those boroughs which are trying to enforce the affordable housing quotas.
	I largely agree with what my noble friend Lady Jones said about the problems of housing in London, although I have said previously that I am not sure that the drive for local authorities to unload their housing stock through stock transfer and the creation of elbow length management organisations has necessarily improved the situation. Indeed, I am aware of a number of situations where that has made the position worse. The key issue is not who provides the social housing, but how much of it we have and what is its quality and affordability. One of the problems of housing in London at the moment is that the only people who can come in as new residents of central London are either extremely poor and therefore entitled to have their rent met by housing benefit in either private or social accommodation or they are extremely rich and therefore can afford the high prices for owner-occupied housing.
	One of the glories of London is that although it has rich and poor neighbourhoods, in rich neighbourhoods there has always been housing for the poor provided by social landlords and local authorities, while in poor areas there are always properties which benefit the rich. If we polarise our mixed societies within London both in terms of tenure and income, we will have a real social problem in the city. It is right, therefore, that, to tackle these developments and this shortage of housing, the mayor takes on some of the powers that currently rest in London and, in part, in the regional government office and exerts on the boroughs the kind of drive that my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton said was exhibited by Bob Mellish all those years ago, so that they deliver their housing targets.
	Noble Lords have touched on another area where the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough in giving the mayor powers: waste disposal. I have had a number of indications of support, not only in this House but from London business, the waste disposal industry itself, the Environment Agency, of which I am a member, and many others in London. It is only really the London boroughs themselves that oppose such a move. I find that bizarre, because, as my noble friend Lord Dubs and others have pointed out, there has been a serious failure by the London boroughs to deliver on the disposal and processing side of their responsibilities.
	I favour a strategic authority, a far more substantial body and process than the forum proposed by the Government, for three or four main reasons. First, the present structure is completely anomalous. We have a number of joint authorities that are rather shadowy and a number of single authorities that do not have the economies of scale they could achieve with waste disposal. We have waste moving across London in vast quantities, and a large chunk of London's waste is being dumped one way or another on the neighbouring counties.
	Secondly, the system is a failure. Not only is London bottom of the league, it used to be fourth from bottom, so it is getting worse in relative terms. The majority of London boroughs are in the bottom quartile on recycling, and three of the bottom five authorities are in London. Only one London authority, Bexley, is in the top quartile. We have a bad record, which, in relative terms, is getting worse. Many authorities are not going to meet their target—including, if I might say so, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The boroughs have not done a good job here.
	Thirdly, we need a substantial amount of investment in infrastructure and a novel use of transportation in this area. A central strategic authority would be able to procure that, identify the sites and make maximum use of new technology, including energy from waste, about which my noble friend Lord Rooker was waxing lyrical at Question Time. I totally agree with what he said. That ought to be a function of a strategic waste authority.
	For all those reasons we need the waste provisions within the Bill to be substantially strengthened. The arguments of the boroughs against that do not add up. They argue that we should not have a two-tier structure, but in at least half of London we have a two-tier structure anyway, and we are talking about the disposal and processing side, not the collection side. The other argument seems to be that if we go through the process of reorganisation, we will miss our targets for 2010. We are going to miss those targets anyway, and the real problem is that we are going to lumber ourselves with a creaking machine for waste disposal within London that will lead us to a chronic failure to meet the targets in 2013 and 2020.
	I propose either to bring forward or to support amendments that would strengthen the provisions on waste in the Bill. For the most part, however, I wish the Bill good speed and certainly a faster process, with fewer government or other amendments, than the process in 1999, which so many of us in this Chamber remember with not quite affection.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it has been a very good debate and I am very grateful for all the contributions from noble Lords. It has made me rather nostalgic for the fact that I was not involved in the previous Bill, length notwithstanding. The only promise that I can make this evening with any certainty is that we will try very hard to limit the number of amendments, on the Government's side at least.
	It has been wonderful listening to the collective experience of so many committed and passionate Londoners around the House tonight. That bodes extremely well for the debates that we shall have as the Bill goes through. I think that the mayor will appreciate being compared more to Wallace and Gromit than to Stalin, but we shall see. The division of the office from the person holding it was a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Graham, who gave a beautiful and moving speech, which took us through the history of London housing and London itself.
	This has not been my specialist subject until now, unlike the majority of noble Lords in the Chamber, but I look forward to developing those skills as we go through the Bill. To reiterate briefly, the debate that we are having has already elucidated some of the differences in perspective. I would not say that there were any cataclysmic differences between us but there are differences in emphasis and perspective, which cluster around things like the role of the mayor. It has been very helpful to me to have such a clear map put in front of us as to where we will have our debates as we go through the Bill, and certainly there will be things that we agree on. There has been a great deal of agreement around the House about the importance of the strategic power and strengthening it in some ways—and clearly we will have a major debate on things like waste.
	The changes that we have proposed are incremental and consistent with the direction of travel that has been taken since 1999, and we are taking forward the Government's commitment to devolve the right powers to the right level of government in London. I look forward to having that debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, especially on the devolution of powers from central government to the regional tier in areas as diverse as housing and the Museum of London.
	In health, we are consolidating and building on current responsibilities whereas in climate change we are taking on some new rules—and extremely interesting they will be, too.
	My noble friend Lord Graham spoke of power, drive and inspiration, and London's housing needs all of that. I hope that we will provide that in the powers we are bringing in. The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, expressed fears about the future of the boroughs. I make it absolutely clear that the boroughs will retain their central, critical roles in delivering housing, planning and waste services. They will continue to deliver specific housing policies to meet local needs, to decide the overwhelming majority of planning applications and to collect and dispose of London's waste. Those well managed boroughs of which the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, spoke have nothing to fear from the Bill. Their ability to deliver services for London will not be interfered with in that sense.
	However, the Greater London Authority Act is the building block for the current structure and the starting point for the additional powers. Many noble Lords spoke with great passion about the need for the strong mayoral model and what it has delivered. My noble friend Lady Jones spoke powerfully about that. The model works; it is a proven success. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, went through some of the things we would not have if it were not for the strong mayoral model and pointed to what the precept has delivered, the vast majority of which has been allocated to putting more police into London's neighbourhoods, which is very important. Indeed, some noble Lords called for more powers for the mayor. As far as I could see, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did just that. My noble friend Lady Jones called on him to be bold. I detected a frisson in the Chamber as she spoke. But balancing that and alongside that, we are strengthening the Assembly's role and providing it with more powers of scrutiny, more powers to ask questions and demand answers and more freedom to decide its own affairs. That will address some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised about the need to reduce confusion and to illuminate what the Assembly does and can do. The additional powers of scrutiny and confirmation will bring greater accountability and transparency. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, also asked for that. In many cases we are merely formalising what has hitherto been done informally and are making very pragmatic changes—for example, in health—but ones that are very much needed if London is to keep its competitive edge. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, spoke very powerfully about that.
	I shall go through a few of the issues raised and answer a few of the questions asked. However, I promise to write to noble Lords if I do not manage to answer them all. I spoke a little about the notion of the strong mayor. Many noble Lords spoke in graphic terms of the need for a stronger housing responsibility for the mayor. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked me specifically about control of the regional housing pot allocations. The Bill does not give the mayor any more power over regional housing pot funding. It is given directly to the London boroughs and is in place in all the regions. The measure simply codifies the existing arrangements. The mayor makes recommendations to the Secretary of State, who makes the final decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why we did not give control of housing policy directly to London boroughs. It is important that pan-London housing issues are properly tackled and that can be done only by means of a strategy that looks across London. Examples of that were given tonight. For example, my noble friend Lady Turner spoke of the need to invest in social housing. One needs a pan-London strategy for social housing. I agree with noble Lords who said that we need social housing. It is critical for London and it is a very high priority for the mayor as well. With housing comes jobs. My noble friends Lady Jones and Lady Turner correctly linked it with employment and job opportunities. That is a classic example of where you need co-ordinated, joined-up, strategic, intelligent decision-making powers.
	Noble Lords addressed the absolutely critical planning elements of the Bill. In the other place Mr Raynsford challenged the Government on some very serious issues. We listened, which is why I was able to tell the House tonight that we have dropped parts three and four of the order. We will continue to listen; in fact, we have been listening quite a lot. We have changed our original proposal that the mayor should decide whether to take over an application at the start and amended it to ensure that the mayor will make his decisions on applications in an open and transparent manner. Many noble Lords spoke of the need for greater transparency; now the mayor will be required to hear in public any oral representations from boroughs and applicants. We will continue to listen to the debate as the Bill goes through the House to ensure, particularly on transparency, that we are all quite sure that the maximum has been obtained. I am sure that the mayor would want that himself. Transparency is extremely important to us.
	Questions were raised about the extent of the mayor's powers, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked what "strategic" meant. That will be an important part of our Committee debate. That term is not defined strictly in the Bill, and I do not believe that it is necessary to define it in the Bill. An application will potentially be of strategic importance if it is caught by one of the thresholds set out in the schedule to the draft Mayor of London order. It will be of strategic importance not only if it is caught by the thresholds but if it satisfies either of the tests in the order. The majority of the thresholds defining applications as of potential strategic importance will be the same as those in the current Mayor of London order, which are very well understood. However, I have heard the concerns expressed by noble Lords on some of the thresholds, including those in relation to the City. We are committed to getting those right and will consider whether changes are justified. We are in constant dialogue with the City and are well aware of its concerns. The noble Lord has put those on the record this evening and I am glad to be able to respond to them. We believe, as I said, that the mayor will not interfere in many applications at all, only in those which raise issues of genuine strategic importance. The track record suggests that we can have that confidence.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who pointed out that many of the problems are implicit in the planning process itself. I think that some of the changes we have made in that process—making it speedier and more transparent—will make a difference. However, I agree that we need to be very watchful of that. Before I leave that point, I should also look at the question on Section 106 raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. She suggested that the mayor might take all the Section 106 moneys for his own schemes and ignore local issues—putting it crudely, I think that that was what she was saying. That will not happen because the current planning obligations set out in our policy circular 05/2005 require fair, open and reasonable negotiation of planning obligations so that they allow a development to go ahead which might otherwise have been refused. I think it is right that, when the mayor takes over an application, he becomes responsible for the planning obligations, but he also has to observe and comply with the requirements. I believe that we can be confident about that. He has to comply with the relevant policies, for example, in the development plan, the London Plan, the UDP or the local development framework.
	There has been a great deal of debate tonight about waste disposal. There are different opinions on that issue around the House and I can see that we will have a very lively debate on it. I was particularly glad that my noble friend Lord Warner spoke of the NHS's relationship to this issue. We must think more about that. However, noble Lords painted a rather bleak picture. That is one of the reasons why we have not supported the notion of a single waste authority in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for example, said that London is the only major metropolitan area without a co-ordinating waste strategy. In fact, the mayor has responsibility for developing a waste strategy for London. The Bill strengthens that and the requirement on the London boroughs to work in general conformity with that strategy. The noble Lord also said that London's performance on waste was poor. He was not the only one. My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke powerfully about that record. In fact, there have been conspicuous improvements. London's recycling rate has more than doubled since 2001. Urban boroughs such as Lambeth exceeded their targets in 2005-06, and Bexley recycled over 35 per cent of waste. Recent figures show that London is closer to its 2009-10 landfill allocations than any other region.
	We face a major challenge. We face tough EU targets to reduce the amount of waste that we send to landfill, and boroughs are responding. Restructuring at this point would delay the urgent work that boroughs are undertaking to meet targets, and it is the wrong time to restructure when people are focusing on what they have to do. Splitting responsibility between two entirely separate political bodies would not work. It would be a recipe for conflict and stagnation. It would also cut across the principle of devolution.
	My noble friend Lord Warner challenged us to produce our breakdown of cost on waste figures and so on, and I will write to him on that. I will also write to my noble friend Lord Berkeley about pedicabs and insurance. We are in active correspondence about that issue already. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is right to say that what we debate on climate change in this Bill will anticipate much of the climate change Bill. There are some interesting questions about definitions, which will be an interesting part of our debate in the remaining stages.
	I happily defend the Government Office for London. It is an excellent body with an important role to play. I cannot understand the cynicism expressed this evening. In fact, the recent review of the Government Office Network by the Treasury and the Department for Communities and Local Government has confirmed the importance of its role. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that staff numbers have fallen by a quarter since October 2004. There are 265 staff now, compared to 376 previously, and more reductions are planned. Some £2.5 billion in grants to the Greater London Authority and Transport for London are being paid through the GOL on behalf of central government, compared to £330 million of funding that it directly spends and £340 million of funding for programmes on behalf of DCLG. The funding package is not quite as simplistic as might have been thought.
	The GLA is delivering improved services for London. Noble Lords do not have to take my word for it; they might be happier taking the word of the Audit Commission. In its audit and inspection letter for 2005-06, it found that the GLA is making good progress and performing well on the use of resources. It said:
	"The past year has been one of considerable progress against the Mayor's priorities. Establishing the London Climate Change Agency is a key step towards tackling climate change, the Mayor's biggest single priority. Crime is at a five-year low. Local policing is now a reality in every ward in London. Investment in public transport is at its highest for sixty years".
	All those noble Lords who had a role in the passage of the GLA Bill in 1999 should congratulate themselves on having created such a wonderful body for London. It is delivering for Londoners, but we do not want to stop there. It is certainly not about reducing or knocking the powers of the boroughs. We need to take more of a regional perspective, especially in the areas identified in the Bill: housing, planning and waste management. We need to up the pace and bring drive and energy, particularly to housing and affordable housing, and to make sure that we have the right infrastructure.
	This Bill is good for London, and I commend it to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the lateness of the hour is self-evident, and I apologise in advance for the length of my speech. I shall deal with the three regulations in one speech and will move the other two Motions later. I do so having had the benefit of the start of the debate in Grand Committee and subsequent discussions with noble Lords and colleagues. People can obviously make their speeches—I am not trying to stop that, and clearly cannot anyway—but I hope that I will give most of the answers to the issues and doubts raised, as it will be much better to do that for completeness. I welcome the opportunity to deal with the three sets of regulations.
	The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 consolidate existing legislation relating to the mutilation of animals. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 prohibits all mutilation of animals other than for the purpose of medical treatment, but subject to any exceptions as may be specified in regulations, and it is the latter permission that the Government are exercising here. It is commonly agreed that certain mutilations are necessary for an animal's long-term welfare, whether for reproduction control or better management. In addition, some forms of mutilation—for example, ear-tagging of certain animals for identification purposes—are required by law. The procedures to be permitted are set out in Schedule 1, with the conditions on how they may be performed or who may perform them in Schedules 2 to 9.
	In deciding which mutilations should be permitted and the conditions attached to their use, we have largely repeated those permitted under existing legislation but also consulted widely on other procedures that should or should not be allowed. The status quo has been replicated in most cases. However, unlike present legislation, where certain procedures are banned, the Act and these regulations together ban any mutilation not specifically permitted. This means that outdated and unacceptable practices not specifically outlawed or subject to regulation will now be banned. We identified 20 practices not subject to legislation but which are no longer generally considered justifiable on animal-welfare grounds, and those will no longer be permitted. They include devoicing cockerels and the ear-cropping of dogs.
	The mutilations regulations are accompanied by the Welfare of Animals (Miscellaneous Revocations) (England) Regulations 2007, which revoke current legislative provisions relating to certain mutilations of farmed animals which are now replaced by the mutilations regulations.
	The Docking of Working Dogs' Tails (England) Regulations 2007, which will concern us most, supply the necessary mechanisms by which the principle of a ban on tail-docking of dogs, with limited exemptions, may have effect. In March last year, there was a very thorough debate on the issue in the other place, and all the main parties allowed Members of Parliament a free vote. I add that the regulations passed through the other place earlier today. With the commencement of Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act, and subject to the approval of these regulations by your Lordships' House, the docking of dogs' tails for cosmetic purposes will now be banned. It will be easy to see that as the shows come around the country, whether they be the big ones such as Crufts or others; it will be self-evident.
	The exemption for working dogs allows a dog that is likely to be used for certain specified types of work to have its tail docked by a veterinary surgeon. The dog will have to be not more than five days' old when the docking is performed, and the veterinary surgeon will have to certify that he or she has seen specific written evidence that the dog is likely to work in one of the few permitted areas. As is currently the case, the vet's decision whether to dock is entirely discretionary. This legislation does not require a vet to dock an eligible dog's tail. Of course veterinary surgeons will continue to be permitted to dock or to amputate the tail of a dog of any type and at any age where it is necessary for its medical treatment.
	Many of my noble friends have concerns about the exemption for working dogs. We are all of the same mind—hence the nature of the debate in the other place—that it is crucial to ensure that only dogs that are genuinely likely to work have their tails docked. We are confident that these regulations close any potential loopholes.
	Regulation 3 outlines the evidence that the vet must see in order to certify the dog as a working dog. The vet must reasonably believe that the dog is not more than five days old and he or she must see the dam of the dog. In addition, another piece of specific documentary evidence relating to the work that the dog is intended for must be shown to the vet by the person presenting the dog.
	At five days old or less, the dog will self-evidently not be a working dog; therefore, we can require only that there is evidence of a genuine intention that the dog will work or be likely to work. It is possible that a dog that is legally docked will not go on to work—because it is not of the right temperament, for example. However, the requirement that documentary evidence be shown and that the owner make a declaration that the dog is intended for work—a false declaration is an offence—is a rigorous yet proportionate way of establishing a genuine intention that the dog will work.
	Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 provide that the dog can be only of a certain type; namely, a spaniel, a terrier, or a hunt point retrieve breed. The inclusion of the types of dog as groups rather than breeds does not mean that the Government anticipate that King Charles spaniels or Yorkshire terriers will be seen out retrieving game or sniffing for explosives. We are aware that some breeds within those types rarely, if ever, work. However, there were a number of reasons for including spaniels, terriers and hunt point retrieve breeds as groups, one of which was the recognition that a considerable number of cross-breeds, particularly in the terrier group, make very effective working dogs.
	In addition, we rejected including a requirement that a dog should be a 100 per cent pure-bred example of a specific breed. It would be difficult to be certain of that fact without, for example, DNA evidence or the production of detailed kennel-book pedigrees. Working dogs are more likely to have been reared for their working abilities than for the purity of their pedigree or their cosmetic perfection as to breed conformation. Rather, we opted for attribution to type on the basis of the identity of the dam; so, for example, a terrier for the purpose of these regulations is the puppy of a dam that can herself be described as a terrier.
	I reiterate that these regulations will absolutely not increase the number or type of dogs whose tails are docked. At present, any dog can have its tail docked by a veterinary surgeon. However, only certain types have their tail docked at present. These measures actively limit the dogs that can have their tail docked to those types included in the exemption, so there is no logic in the argument that the regulations will increase the numbers of dogs affected. I appreciate the correspondence from many members of the public and dog-lovers on that matter. It is therefore important to be clear about this.
	It is worth reiterating that a dog cannot have its tail docked unless it meets all the requirements in the regulations. It must be five days old or less, be accompanied by the documentary evidence and one of the specified types, which will be shown by the presentation of the dam.
	Regulation 4 describes how a docked dog must subsequently be identified. This must be done by microchip before the dog is three months old. That stems from the requirement in Section 6(8)(b) of the primary Act that the dog be identified before three months of age. We expect that in most cases docking and microchipping will be done at the same time. However, at the time of drafting Section 6 of the Act, we received representation from some vets and animal welfare groups concerned that, given the size of a puppy at less than five days old, it may not always be appropriate to microchip at that time. Therefore, it was felt best to leave this to the discretion of the vet and to enable him or her to microchip later if it was felt more appropriate to do so. Microchipping is a known and effective identification tool and is already compulsory for dogs with pet passports.
	In a small number of cases, a vet who has not docked the dog's tail may be asked to carry out the microchipping. In this case, the vet will also be asked to sign the certificate, which will have been signed by the docking vet at the time of docking. If the second vet has any concerns about the identity of the dog being presented for microchipping, he or she can check with the previous vet or their practice, whose contact details and signature will be on the certificate. If any worries remain, the vet does not have to microchip the dog; it is discretionary.
	Concerns have been raised about how the legislation will be enforced. This has been the subject of much informal discussion between noble Lords and officials in the department and between officials and other groups. We believe that we have struck the correct balance in a system for enforcement which is both strong and proportionate. The compulsory certificate, which a legally docked dog will have throughout its life and which will change hands when the owner changes, will be the primary enforcement tool.
	Concerns have been raised about the absence of a specific offence of refusing to produce a certificate to an authorised person to prove that the docking has been done legally. We did not see the need for this offence, as the reasonable assumption was made that anyone accused of one of the tail-docking offences would voluntarily produce the certificate where this would exculpate him or her. Nevertheless, should they be necessary, there are wider enforcement powers in Section 23 of the Act, which cover entry and search powers in connection with offences. These are available to police and inspectors should they feel it necessary to use them. I remind noble Lords that the offence of docking a dog's tail is punishable by imprisonment up to a maximum of 51 weeks or a fine of up to £20,000, or both. Although the Government are confident that these regulations can be effectively enforced, we will take a very active interest in their enforcement and may review the enforcement provisions if concerns continue to be raised.
	Tail-docking continues to be a contentious issue, partly because of the anecdotal nature of much of the evidence surrounding docking and tail injury. We understand that discussions are under way at the Royal Veterinary College about a potential study comparing the working dog exemption in England and Wales with the total ban in Scotland. The Government welcome any scientific evidence in this area and will be interested to see the results of this work.
	I very much hope that the House will approve the regulations. Obviously, the consequences of not approving them are that the docking of dogs' tails for cosmetic purposes will continue, and I do not think that anyone wants that. The regulations represent an effective and proportionate approach to fleshing out the principle agreed by the other place last year. To reject them now would mean that Section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act would not come into force on 6 April, and docking for cosmetic purposes would be permitted to continue.
	I apologise for the length of my speech but I hope that I have covered many of the issues that have concerned noble Lords. I commend the regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8 February be approved. 9th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare my interests as an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.
	I am most grateful to the Minister for his extended explanation of the Docking of Working Dogs' Tails (England) Regulations 2007, as, indeed, I am to him for arranging, a fortnight ago, for noble Lords interested in the regulations to meet him and his officials in an attempt to clarify the intentions behind them.
	The noble Lord has a copy of the briefing that I asked for from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, so I do not intend to take up the time of the House by repeating what he already knows. The RSPCA has also asked me to express its ongoing reservations and disappointment that its continued pressure on the issue of enforcement has failed to elicit a satisfactory solution from Defra. The RSPCA stresses that, for it, the key issue is enforcement and the need for effectiveness and efficiency. It does not want to lose the important prohibition of docking for cosmetic reasons. The society maintains that, with the exemption, the regulations as drafted will be very difficult to enforce and that the suggestion that it will be possible to obtain a warrant is unlikely, in its experience, to provide a viable solution.
	It has been said many times before, by me and by others, that a respected law is one that is reasonable, clear and enforceable. Unfortunately, the regulations do not meet the last two qualities. A number of the organisations that responded to consultation documents—the RCVS and the RSPCA among them— have expressed their regret that Defra officials seem to have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to many of the submissions that they made about amendments that they believe would have clarified the position for veterinary surgeons, dog owners and enforcers.
	It is not my intention to delay the introduction of this very important addition to the animal welfare armoury any further. I am sorry that the Minister is not prepared to make the few amendments that I believe would make the regulations stronger. I do, however, ask the Minister whether he feels able to offer his assurance that the regulations will be, or not may be, reviewed after a reasonable time—say in two years' time—to ensure that they are effective? As well as seeing the royal colleges' research, would he also consult with his Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh counterparts to compare the effectiveness of their legislation with this?
	In the mean time, if my advice were sought by someone considering docking a newborn puppy's tail, whether a vet, a dog owner or a prospective buyer, I would remind him of Mr Punch's advice to those about to marry: "If in doubt, don't".

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am most grateful for the contributions that have been made tonight. I shall answer some of the queries tonight, and will write to noble Lords on those that I cannot answer tonight.
	The noble Countess mentioned a review, but this is a statutory instrument, which brings me back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about putting all this into primary legislation. If we rely on primary legislation, knowing the pressure on parliamentary time, nothing will happen. A change may be required, but this will not be top of the slot. Regulations deal with the nitty-gritty so that one can adjust to changing circumstances. If things do not to work out as one intended, one can at least change the regulations more easily than looking for parliamentary time to make primary legislation. It is simply not a runner to say that everything should be done by a Bill. Notwithstanding that, I have no doubt that the legislation will be under constant review by the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups and in Parliamentary Questions. No action on prosecutions is expected shortly. We may get nothing for 12 months because various situations would have to arise. Undoubtedly from the RSPCA's point of view, the first body to bring a prosecution on this issue has to get it right and win it. One cannot afford to have any doubt here, so being sure of the circumstances and getting the evidence right is obviously essential. This is a very sensitive area.
	I have made it clear that Defra and Ministers will take an active interest in the enforcement provisions of the legislation, which are the key area, in a way. Indeed, if concerns continue to be expressed and there is evidence to support those concerns, we will have the matter reviewed. There is no doubt about that. If the evidence and the concerns are there, we will take action to get the matter reviewed. I have no doubt that the Select Committee in the other place will want to have a review. This is of great interest to both Houses because it is of great interest to the public. No doubt it is also of interest to Defra and the Home Affairs Committee, because there is a slight connection there.
	Schedule 2 contains narrow exemptions for working dogs for,
	"armed forces identification; emergency rescue identification; police identification; prison service identification; HMRC identification".
	All those bodies are scrutinised in one way or another by Select Committees in the other place, so if there is any evidence that things are not working out as planned, there is ample opportunity for Parliament to take an active interest. I would imagine that, in the normal course of events and in the flow of the way in which the Act is implemented, there will be opportunities for review, as the noble Countess said. I cannot guarantee a review of an independent committee, but if this has not been given proper parliamentary scrutiny in three to four years, with the Government and outside bodies giving evidence, I will eat my hat. I would encourage Select Committees to do that. After all, the scrutiny side of the process of legislation is just as important as the executive side. As noble Lords have said, there are some difficulties, and I do not have all the answers. For example, tail-docking tourism, as I think it was described, across the Border is clearly a potential difficulty.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about the desirability of microchipping. I made the point that our preference would be to microchip when docking takes place. However, because the Government have discussed this matter with outside bodies, it was put to us that the size of some puppies is such that microchipping would not be appropriate at that time. But the safeguards are there. The certificate should be signed by the vet who did the docking, although the same vet does not have to do the microchipping. Vets have total discretion. They can say, "No, we just don't do tail docking here. Don't ask us: refusal offends". They do not have to give a reason. From that point of view, vets are in control.
	On the English family travelling to Scotland—whether to live or on holiday—presumably the dog would have been lawfully docked, so there would not be an offence under Scottish law. However, they would have to maintain that certificate and must be able to show it. Otherwise, they would be subject to potential prosecution.
	Holdings that straddle the Border will depend on the location of the farmhouse. This reminds me of single farm payments where many farms straddle the Border and someone has to make a decision. The holding can straddle the border, but I do not think any farmhouses have an address that straddles the Border. However, that is the case in Northern Ireland. Some farmhouses quite deliberately straddle the border, for reasons that are nothing to do with this. On the residency of the owner, having been in the other place, my argument would be, "Who is your MP? You have only got one and there is no argument about who it is. You are on a boundary and you have an address". Quite clearly, there is a domiciled address and there cannot be any argument. That should satisfy that question. So there are issues relating to that.
	The Farm Animal Welfare Council advises and assists the Government, but I do not know when it will report. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also mentioned ear-tagging, which I fully understand. I visit many farms and I get my ears bent about the double-tagging of cattle, as I will tomorrow when I visit farms in Gloucestershire. There are serious problems, which I understand. The large plastic tags get snagged, but they are readable at a distance, which can be quite important because there can be tragedies—I read about one earlier today. Sheep are no different—they get to places that cattle do not—and there are serious difficulties about snagging in fences. This is not just about UK law, we are also dealing with EU legislation. This is also part of the traceability of the food chain. It is not done for the sake of it. For sheep and cattle, it is part of traceability of where the animals have been and what holdings they have been on. If difficulties arise, as they have in the past, at least we can trace them.
	The noble Duke asked about goats and sheep, but I may not have all the answers. The dehorning of adult sheep must be carried out by a veterinary surgeon as potential problems may require veterinary knowledge. However, the removal of the insensitive tip of an ingrowing horn may be done by a layman as that is not classed as mutilation, so there are some areas there where work can be carried out. So there are some areas where work can be carried out.
	Further to an EC directive, the docking of piglets' tails is not permitted as a routine procedure in the UK. It can be done only where there is evidence that injuries to other pigs' tails has occurred as a result of tail biting. The procedure cannot be carried out unless other measures to improve the environment or management systems have been taken in an attempt to prevent the tail biting in the first place. We would like to see a reduction of tail docking. These regulations will reduce tail-docking of dogs, there is no question about that, but we want also to see a reduction of the practice in pigs. However, it is a complex area and many factors are involved. That is why the Pig Welfare Code gives detailed advice to farmers on actions they can take that may help to reduce the level of tail biting.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about the definition of "hygienic conditions". This is a generally understood term so there is no problem with it. If necessary it would be interpreted by a court because that is where the issue would arise. It would also be for the vet and others bringing a prosecution to go to court and explain the situation with photographs and descriptions. However, it is a generally understood term that the courts have dealt with before.
	I was not sure whether the noble Baroness was being light-hearted about contraception and the pig breeding programme. There is a serious point here. The draft is okay and the word "not" is not missing. It relates to a conservation breeding programme, and contraception can be a crucial part of it. It is used to avoid genetic over-representation. There are issues here and I understand why the noble Baroness raised the point.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 8 February be approved. 9th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 8 February be approved. 9th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at 11.02 pm.